Chloe, a French chef When I was born and trained as a cook in France, Korea was a distant and unfamiliar country to me. While my friends were immersed in K-pop and Korean dramas, I was devoted solely to the kitchen—my knives, my craft, and the traditions of French cuisine. With a firm belief that French cuisine represented the pinnacle of gastronomy, I nurtured a dream of becoming a renowned chef. Then, an unexpected connection appeared in my life. I discovered that the bakery I used to enjoy in France, Paris Baguette, was actually a Korean company. From that moment on, my curiosity about Korea began to grow. The decisive turning point came when I watched *Chef’s Table* on Netflix. The temple cuisine of Venerable Jeong Kwan that I encountered there was nothing short of a revelation. The idea that one could create such depth and refinement of flavor without meat or butter shook the very foundations of what I had believed cooking to be. I wanted to learn Korean cuisine, but there were no suitable mentors in France. Then, by sheer luck, an opportunity arose. A chef I had been working with asked if I would consider following him to Korea. I immediately replied, “oui.” Working in a hotel kitchen in Seoul, I discovered that Korea was far more dynamic and creative than I had ever imagined. What impressed me most was Korea’s remarkable ability to fuse. Koreans do not merely imitate foreign cuisines; they reinterpret them in their own way, creating something entirely new. Seeing the French dishes I had taught transformed and elevated through a Korean sensibility was, at times, astonishing—and even inspiring. This creativity extends beyond food. When I traveled from Seoul to Busan by KTX, I was struck by how fast, clean, and efficient it was. I learned that while its origins lay in French technology, it had been further developed by Korea. It felt like a symbol of cooperation between our two countries. From energy to culture and the arts, France and Korea have grown together through mutual influence. If France embodies a long tradition and depth in gastronomy, Korea represents adaptability and a keen sense of transformation. When these qualities meet, new possibilities emerge. The foundation is already in place for us to move beyond simple exchange toward true co-creation. One day, I hope to return to France and open my own restaurant. There, I want to present a new kind of cuisine—French dishes enriched by the depth of Korean fermentation and *jang*. It will not be mere fusion, but rather the result of two cultures understanding and respecting one another. Between butter and *jang*, I continue to learn. Cuisine transcends borders, cultures blend, and people evolve. And in that transformation, France and Korea can move forward together—further than ever before.

Bruno Costa, Former Pilot For over 30 years, I worked as an aircraft pilot in Brazil, traveling across many countries around the world. Among them, Korea remained unfamiliar to me for a long time. However, I still vividly remember my first landing at Incheon International Airport while working for a foreign airline. Its vast scale, efficient operations, and meticulous service clearly demonstrated how rapidly the country had developed. Interestingly, it was my family that brought Korea closer into my life. As my daughter and granddaughter became deeply immersed in K-pop, Korean culture naturally found its way into our daily lives. Through music and television dramas, Korea transformed in my mind from a distant country into one that felt warm and familiar. Beyond my personal experience, I came to realize how powerfully culture can bridge the distance between nations. Recently, I read that the Republic of Korea Air Force has introduced Brazil’s Embraer C-390 transport aircraft and even completed its rollout ceremony. It is truly meaningful to see an aircraft that represents the pride of Brazil’s aviation industry take to the skies of Korea. More importantly, the fact that both countries are exploring not only procurement but also technological cooperation and joint export opportunities signals a new phase in bilateral relations. The trust and experience built in the aviation sector will serve as a strong foundation for deeper ties between our two nations. The momentum of cooperation between Brazil and Korea extends far beyond aviation. Following the recent visit of the Brazilian president to Korea, collaboration has expanded across various sectors, including the economy, finance, science and technology, and agriculture. The signing of ten Memoranda of Understanding stands as a symbolic milestone, demonstrating that both countries are evolving into practical and forward-looking partners. Korea has achieved remarkable growth, rising from the devastation of war to become a leading industrial nation, while Brazil, with its abundant resources and population, plays a key role in the Global South. Together, these complementary strengths create immense potential for synergy. As a pilot, I have learned that air routes are not merely paths of transportation, but vital connections that link people, cultures, and nations. Today, Brazil and Korea are forging new connections across aviation, industry, and culture. What matters most is that this cooperation does not remain temporary, but continues to expand based on mutual trust. I am planning to visit Korea soon with my family. What was once simply a “destination” in my flight path has now become a place my entire family eagerly wishes to experience. It is fascinating to see how a personal journey of curiosity can align with the broader trajectory of relations between our two countries. Brazil and Korea are already strategic partners. Now is the time to give that partnership deeper substance. Through cooperation that connects technology, industry, culture, and people, I sincerely hope that our two nations will continue to grow together in a truly mutually beneficial relationship.

Freelance Writer Takahasi Saeko Born and raised in Japan, I am now living in Korea with my husband and our two children. My relationship with my Korean husband dates back to 2008. We first met through a Zainichi Korean friend, and after seven years of dating, we got married. Today, I run a small café in Korea while continuing my life as a writer. In Japan, I worked as both a journalist and a writer, and I still contribute articles to newspapers and magazines. One day, I hope to publish a novel in Korean. These days, “Korea–Japan couples” seem to be trending on YouTube, and I suppose I am part of that trend as well. Many Koreans say that Korean men and Japanese women make a good match. After living with my Korean husband for over ten years, I can say that beyond cultural differences, empathy, consideration, and love are what truly sustain a stable marriage. However, separate from my personal life, Korea–Japan relations often swing between warmth and tension. Whenever a Japanese politician makes remarks about historical or territorial issues, the atmosphere in Korea quickly turns cold. Not long ago, when Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi mentioned Dokdo, Korean society reacted strongly. Including my husband, many people around me in Korea took the issue very seriously. From my perspective as a Japanese person, such remarks are often closely tied to domestic politics in Japan. They are frequently messages aimed at consolidating support ahead of elections, and most Japanese people pay little attention to them. In everyday life, rather than politics, it is the growing popularity of Korean culture—K-pop, dramas, and food—that shapes people’s perceptions of Korea in Japan. In Korea, however, remarks about Dokdo are not seen as mere political rhetoric but as issues of sovereignty. This difference in perception is not something that can be taken lightly, and it seems important for both Japan and Korea to make efforts to understand each other’s perspectives. It is also crucial to ensure that political conflicts do not dominate individuals’ lives and emotions. Couples like us, who cross borders to choose each other, live by understanding each other’s cultures. Our daily lives exist separately from political conflicts. Our children learn both languages, and we celebrate each other’s holidays together. Perhaps these small connections are what truly form the foundation of future Korea–Japan relations. Politics may at times shake relations between nations, but trust between people does not break so easily. What ordinary people hope for is not grand diplomatic achievements between Japan and Korea. Rather, it is an atmosphere where people accept and respect one another as they are—where daily exchanges and mutual understanding build a stable life, without being swayed by every political statement. In an era where living across borders is no longer something unusual, I hope that Korea–Japan relations will move toward peace, cooperation, and coexistence rather than confrontation. And at the center of it all are ordinary people, quietly living their everyday lives.

By Budi Santoso Budi Santoso is a Southeast Asian graduate student studying international relations in Korea. Global attention is turning to Seoul’s Gwanghwamun Square on March 21, where BTS is set to hold its long-awaited comeback concert. As one of the world’s most influential music groups returns to the stage, ARMY from across the globe—especially from Southeast Asia, where the Korean Wave enjoys immense popularity—are flocking to Korea in large numbers. Reports of ARMY booking flights in hopes of securing concert tickets illustrate how K-pop has evolved beyond mere cultural content into a vibrant platform for international exchange. Southeast Asia has long been one of the most enthusiastic consumers of Korean culture. In countries such as Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam, interest in K-pop, Korean dramas, and Korean cuisine has become part of everyday life. At the center of this phenomenon stands BTS. Their music and message transcend language barriers, national borders, and generational divides, creating a shared sense of connection. For many in Southeast Asia, Korea is no longer a distant foreign country but a familiar and even aspirational place—somewhere they wish to visit and emulate. Recently, a minor altercation between Southeast Asian and Korean fans at an overseas K-pop concert escalated into an online dispute. While emotions briefly ran high and issues of prejudice were raised, the conflict quickly subsided. This is largely because most K-pop fans share a mutual respect for each other’s cultures and find common ground through music. The BTS comeback concert represents the pinnacle of this shared experience. In the historic setting of Gwanghwamun, ARMY from around the world will gather to sing and cheer together, symbolizing a powerful sense of global connection. In particular, the moment when Southeast Asian and Korean ARMY sing the same songs and share the same emotions will offer one of the most natural ways to understand one another. Genuine friendship is built when people connect on an emotional level. Culture, in this sense, holds a unique power to ease tensions and strengthen bonds. It is my hope that the songs of BTS echoing through Gwanghwamun will become, above all, songs of friendship linking Southeast Asia and Korea. In the face of a shared love for music, nationality and language lose their importance. What comes after these songs of friendship—the task of proving their sincerity—belongs to all of us.

Lucid White Secretary-General, China–Korea Cultural Cooperation Research Association 1. The Middle East War and Its Implications for South Korea The Middle East war that erupted on February 28, 2026—triggered by U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear and military facilities—has been rapidly escalating following Iran’s sweeping retaliatory attacks. Tehran has launched missiles and drones not only toward Israel but also against neighboring countries hosting U.S. military bases, raising fears that the conflict may expand into a broader regional war engulfing the entire Middle East. The outbreak of hostilities, coupled with Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, has sent global oil prices soaring. The resulting surge in energy costs is intensifying inflationary pressures, destabilizing financial markets, and heightening concerns about a global economic slowdown. For South Korea, which imports more than 70 percent of its crude oil from the Middle East, the crisis presents a particularly serious economic vulnerability. 2. A Proxy Contest Between the Spear (North Korea) and the Shield (South Korea) Recently, footage has been circulating on YouTube showing South Korea’s Cheongung-II missile defense system intercepting Iranian missiles launched toward the United Arab Emirates. Reports highlighting its remarkable 96 percent interception rate—along with news of a surge in additional orders—have reverberated across the global defense market. Once considered a peripheral player in Northeast Asia, South Korea’s defense industry—often referred to as “K-defense”—is now emerging as a major force on the global stage. The missiles fired by Iran are widely believed to be based on North Korean technology, while the Cheongung-II system that intercepted them is a product of South Korea. Since the 1980s, North Korea has transferred missile technology to Iran, while South Korea has invested heavily in missile defense capabilities to counter the North Korean threat. In this sense, the ongoing Middle East war bears an uncanny resemblance to a proxy confrontation between North Korea and South Korea. In the age-old contest between the spear that claims to pierce any shield and the shield that promises to block any spear, the recent success of the shield offers South Korea a reassuring—and deeply gratifying—demonstration of its defensive capabilities. 3. The Return of an Arms Race: Why K-Defense Matters The Middle East war will, in one way or another, eventually come to an end. Yet when it does, the world may well enter a renewed era of arms competition reminiscent of the Cold War. Nations will increasingly channel resources into defense spending, strengthening their militaries in the name of preserving peace. The old Roman adage—“If you want peace, prepare for war”—may soon acquire a modern twist. In the years ahead, it may well be paraphrased as: “If you want peace, pay attention to K-defense.”

Executive Summary This report examines global data protection standards through the lens of South Korea’s regulatory response to the large-scale data breach involving Coupang. Affecting approximately 33.7 million user accounts, the incident provides a useful case study for understanding how governments respond when personal data exposure reaches population-scale proportions. Rather than assessing the incident as a company-specific or country-specific controversy, this analysis situates the response within broader international practices related to data governance, digital infrastructure oversight, and systemic risk management. 1. Large-Scale Data Breaches as a Governance Issue Large-scale data breaches have increasingly shifted from being viewed as isolated corporate incidents to becoming matters of public governance. As digital platforms expand their user bases to encompass a majority of national populations, the personal data they manage begins to resemble critical infrastructure rather than private commercial assets. In this context, failures in data protection can generate ripple effects that extend well beyond the affected company. These include erosion of public trust in digital services, increased vulnerability to cybercrime and foreign exploitation, and broader concerns regarding economic and social stability. As a result, governments across advanced economies now treat population-scale data breaches as events with systemic implications. This shift reflects a broader transformation in how personal data is understood in policy circles. Data is no longer merely an input for innovation and commerce; it is increasingly recognized as a strategic resource whose protection carries public interest considerations. Regulatory frameworks in the United States, the European Union, and Asia have evolved accordingly, placing greater emphasis on oversight, accountability, and resilience in digital systems. When breaches affect tens of millions of individuals, governments are often compelled to intervene not simply to determine liability, but to assess whether existing safeguards are adequate for the scale of operations involved. Such interventions typically involve evaluating governance structures, security architectures, and organizational practices to identify systemic weaknesses that could pose ongoing risks. The Coupang data breach fits this emerging governance paradigm. With personal data exposure affecting a substantial majority of South Korea’s population, the incident crossed the threshold at which private-sector risk management alone is considered insufficient. Government involvement, in this sense, represents a response to the scale and potential impact of the breach rather than a judgment on the company itself. Understanding large-scale data breaches as governance issues helps clarify why regulatory responses have become more consistent and predictable across jurisdictions. Rather than signaling exceptional enforcement, such actions reflect a shared recognition that digital platforms operating at national scale require oversight mechanisms comparable to those applied to other forms of critical infrastructure. 2. Scale as the Primary Trigger for Regulatory Action A central feature of contemporary data protection governance is the growing reliance on scale as the primary determinant of regulatory response. Across jurisdictions, the magnitude of a data breach—measured by the number of affected individuals, the sensitivity of the data involved, and the potential downstream impact—has become more decisive than the identity of the company or its ownership structure. When data exposure reaches population-scale proportions, regulatory authorities face obligations that extend beyond traditional enforcement considerations. Large numbers amplify risk in multiple dimensions: the probability of misuse increases, the potential for secondary harms multiplies, and the cumulative societal impact becomes more difficult to contain. For this reason, many data protection frameworks incorporate thresholds—explicit or implicit—at which government intervention becomes not only likely but institutionally expected. In the Coupang case, the exposure of approximately 33.7 million user records placed the incident well beyond the threshold of routine corporate compliance issues. Comparable breaches affecting tens of millions of users in the United States and the European Union have consistently prompted formal investigations, compulsory audits, and, in some cases, significant administrative penalties. The regulatory logic applied in South Korea follows this established pattern. Importantly, scale-driven enforcement functions as a neutrality mechanism within data protection regimes. By anchoring regulatory action to quantifiable impact rather than corporate characteristics, authorities reduce the risk of selective or discretionary enforcement. This approach helps ensure that domestic and foreign firms are subject to comparable expectations when operating data systems of similar size and significance. Scale also shapes the temporal dimension of regulatory response. Large-scale breaches often require extended investigation periods, multi-agency coordination, and long-term remediation plans. These processes reflect the complexity inherent in assessing systemic vulnerabilities within platforms that serve millions of users, rather than an indication of heightened scrutiny directed at a particular entity. Understanding scale as the principal trigger for regulatory action helps contextualize South Korea’s response to the Coupang breach. The measures taken are consistent with a global regulatory trend that treats population-scale data exposure as a category of risk warranting heightened oversight. In this framework, regulatory intervention is a function of impact and potential harm, not nationality, investment background, or political consideration. 3. Convergence in Global Data Protection Practices A defining trend in contemporary data governance is the increasing convergence of data protection practices across advanced digital economies. While legal frameworks differ in structure and terminology, regulatory responses to large-scale data breaches display notable similarities in both process and substance. In the United States, major data breaches commonly trigger investigations by federal and state authorities, often accompanied by consent decrees, mandated security reforms, and ongoing compliance monitoring. The focus is typically placed on whether reasonable safeguards were in place and whether companies acted promptly to mitigate harm. The scale of the breach plays a central role in determining the intensity and duration of regulatory oversight. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides one of the most explicit examples of scale-based enforcement. Breaches involving large volumes of personal data routinely lead to formal inquiries, corrective orders, and administrative fines proportionate to the scope of impact. Importantly, GDPR enforcement applies uniformly to both EU-based and non-EU companies, reinforcing the principle that operational scale, rather than nationality, governs regulatory response. Similar patterns are evident across East Asia. Japan, Singapore, and South Korea have progressively strengthened their data protection regimes, emphasizing post-breach investigations, system audits, and preventive compliance measures. In these jurisdictions, regulatory authorities increasingly frame large-scale data incidents as systemic risks requiring institutional remedies rather than isolated corporate failures. Across these regions, several common elements emerge: Formal regulatory review triggered by breach magnitude Evaluation of governance structures and security architecture Requirements for remediation and future risk mitigation Proportionate administrative sanctions where legal thresholds are met South Korea’s response to the Coupang data breach reflects this broader international alignment. The procedures applied—investigation, assessment of safeguards, and corrective requirements—mirror enforcement pathways observed in other advanced economies facing comparable incidents. This convergence underscores a key insight: global data protection standards are no longer fragmented or idiosyncratic. Instead, they are increasingly shaped by shared understandings of scale, systemic risk, and the infrastructural role of digital platforms. Within this evolving landscape, national regulatory responses tend to move in parallel, even in the absence of identical legal frameworks. 4. Digital Platforms and Systemic Responsibility As digital platforms grow in scale and complexity, regulatory expectations are increasingly shifting from incident-based accountability to systemic responsibility. Platforms that manage personal data for tens of millions of users now function as essential components of economic and social infrastructure, comparable in certain respects to financial systems, energy networks, or telecommunications services. This infrastructural role changes the nature of regulatory oversight. Rather than focusing solely on isolated security failures, authorities increasingly assess whether platforms have established governance structures capable of managing long-term, system-wide risk. This includes evaluating internal decision-making processes, investment in cybersecurity, incident response capacity, and the ability to adapt safeguards as scale increases. Systemic responsibility also implies a forward-looking regulatory approach. Governments are placing greater emphasis on resilience, redundancy, and prevention, recognizing that reactive enforcement alone is insufficient in highly interconnected digital ecosystems. In practice, this means requiring platforms to demonstrate not only compliance with minimum legal standards, but also preparedness for evolving threats. The Coupang data breach highlights this shift in regulatory focus. Given the platform’s extensive user base, regulatory attention naturally extended beyond the immediate cause of the incident to broader questions about organizational safeguards and system design. Such scrutiny reflects a growing international consensus that platforms operating at national scale must be held to higher standards of operational responsibility. Importantly, systemic responsibility does not equate to punitive intent. Instead, it reflects an effort to align private-sector operations with public-interest considerations where digital platforms perform functions critical to daily life. Regulatory measures in this context are best understood as mechanisms to ensure continuity, trust, and stability rather than as sanctions aimed at individual firms. By framing oversight in terms of systemic responsibility, governments seek to reduce the likelihood of cascading failures that could affect large segments of the population. This approach is increasingly evident across jurisdictions and represents a key pillar of modern data governance. 5. Distinguishing Regulatory Enforcement from Investment Considerations In cross-border digital markets, regulatory enforcement and investment interests frequently intersect, particularly when large-scale platforms are involved. However, global practice consistently distinguishes data protection enforcement from investment-related concerns, treating them as separate policy domains governed by different legal and institutional logics. Data protection regulation is fundamentally grounded in public interest objectives, including the protection of individual rights, the maintenance of trust in digital systems, and the mitigation of systemic risk. When large-scale data breaches occur, governments are expected to act in accordance with existing legal frameworks, regardless of potential market or valuation impacts. This expectation applies across jurisdictions and does not depend on a company’s ownership structure or investor composition. By contrast, investment considerations—such as regulatory predictability, market access, and potential effects on firm valuation—are typically addressed through broader economic policy dialogue rather than through the suspension or modification of post-breach enforcement. International precedent indicates that concerns raised by investors do not override a government’s obligation to apply data protection laws consistently following incidents of significant scale. Maintaining a clear separation between regulatory enforcement and investment impact serves several important functions. It preserves the credibility and neutrality of regulatory institutions, ensures equal treatment of domestic and foreign firms, and prevents the politicization of data protection standards. Conflating these domains risks undermining both regulatory legitimacy and investor confidence in the long term. In the context of the Coupang data breach, regulatory actions should therefore be understood as part of a standard compliance and oversight process triggered by the scale and potential impact of the incident. While such actions may have secondary implications for business operations or investment sentiment, these outcomes are not unique to this case and are widely observed in comparable incidents globally. Understanding this distinction is essential for accurately interpreting government responses to large-scale data breaches. It reinforces the view that regulatory enforcement, when applied consistently and transparently, functions as a stabilizing element within digital markets rather than as a source of arbitrary or discriminatory intervention.