WT/REG371/2  
 
20 June 2017 
(17-3297) Page: 1/5 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  Origina l: English  
 
 FREE TRADE AGREEMENT  BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA AND VIET NAM  
(GOODS  AND SERVICES ) 
QUESTIONS AND REPLIE S 
 The following communication, dated  19 June 2017, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegations of the Republic of Korea  and Viet Nam . 
 
_____ __________  
 
 
Question from the delegation of Canada  
 
1.1.  Paragraph 3.55: This section indicates that Chapter 13 identifies cooperation 
activities related to a number of sectors; a non -exclusive list of sectors of mutual benefit 
are set out in Article 13.2, inc luding industry, agriculture, forestry and fisheries that 
supplement cooperation foreseen under other chapters of the Agreement as well as 
existing cooperative arrangements between the Parties.  
a) In the context of forestry and fisheries, could the Parties p rovide examples of 
cooperation activities, including the topics being explored that have taken place 
to date and/or are planned?    
 
Parties reply :  
 VKFTA cooperation activities that have taken place to date or are planned do not include any 
projects in fo restry or fisheries.  
 
 New projects to be implemented this year are being considered in the fields of Rules of 
Origin, IPR, and used machinery. Projects for next year have not been decided yet.  
 
Questions from the delegation of Japan  
 
1.2.  Paragraph 5.24: with respect to paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 12.5, we would like 
to know whether a trademark can be determined as a well -known mark based on the 
knowledge of the public in a Party to which the remedies are sought or the knowledge of 
the public of either Party . 
Parties reply :  
 
 The provision included in the Korea -Viet Nam FTA about Well -Known Trademarks reads, 
"Neither Party may require as a condition for determining that a trademark is well -known that the 
trademark has been registered in the Party."  
 
 The ques tion from Japan about well -known marks is not specifically mentioned in the 
Korea -Viet Nam FTA, thus each country can decide the scope of knowledge according to each 
country's law and regulations.  
 
 According to Article 4 of the IP Law of VN, well -known ma rk means a mark widely known by 
consumers throughout the Vietnamese territory.  
 WT/REG371/2  
 
- 2 - 
 
   The footnote number 3 of Chapter 12 of the FTA: "Neither Party may require that the 
reputation of the trademark extend beyond the sector of the public that normally deals wit h the 
relevant goods or services." is added with the aim of making the provision in Article 16(2) of TRIPS 
clearer.  
 
1.3.  Paragraph 5.24: with respect to paragraph 4(a) of Article 12.7, does this 
subparagraph cover all disclosure made or authorized by the paten t applicant? Also, 
what types of disclosure are expected when stating that disclosures are "made without 
authorization by the patent applicant in accordance with its domestic laws and 
regulations" in the same paragraph?  
Parties reply :  
 
 There are no speci fic restrictions on the type of disclosure when a disclosure is made public 
by the patent applicant or when it is without authorization by the applicant.  
 
 Under the Korean patent law, in case of public disclosure made by patent applicant, public 
disclosu re exception is not allowed in domestic or international open applications or publication of 
registration.  
 
 For Viet Nam, according to Article 60 of the IP Law, an invention shall not be considered 
having lost its novelty if it is published under the type  of scientific presentation or displayed at the 
national or an official or officially recognized international exhibitions.  
 
 Viet Nam does not provide for any restriction on the disclosure made without authorization 
of the applicant, so any type of disclo sure made without authorization by the applicant is accepted.  
 
Question from the delegation of the Russian Federation  
 
Global safeguards  
 
1.4.  Paragraph 3.41: Each Party retains its rights and obligations under Article XIX of 
GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement on Safeguards, and the WTO Agreement on 
Agriculture (Article  7.5). The Agreement shall not confer any additional rights or impose 
any additional obligations on the Parties with respect to measures applied under the 
respective above -mentioned WTO agreements (A rticle  7.5.1).  
Under the Agreement Viet Nam will apply a global safeguard measure if Korean 
import of agricultural goods is significantly increased. How does this correspond to the 
fact that Viet Nam has no right to apply Special Agricultural Safeguards un der the WTO 
Agreement on Agriculture?   
 
Parties reply :  
 Article 7.5.1 of the Korea -Viet Nam FTA clarifies that this Agreement does not affect the 
rights and obligations provided in the previous WTO agreements.  
 
 The WTO Agreement on Agriculture is not m entioned in Article 7.5 of the Korea -Viet Nam 
FTA. 
 
 SSG rule, which is set out in the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, is different from the WTO 
Global Safeguard Agreement.  
 
 Viet Nam has  the right to apply a global safeguard under the WTO Agreement on 
Safeg uards.  
 
 Whether or not Viet Nam has the right to apply SSG is to be determined under the WTO 
Agreement on Agriculture, not within the context of the Korea -Viet Nam FTA.  
 
 
 
 WT/REG371/2  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Question s from the delegation of Thailand  
 
Annex 8 -D Schedule of Specific Commitm ents Korea (Page 12)  
Legal services (CPC 861)  
 
1.5.  Note no 5. A Foreign Legal Consultant is required to stay in Korea not less than 
180 days a year.  
 According to Korea 's schedule of specific commitments, Korea has defined the 
notes for legal services (CPC 86 1) that "A Foreign Legal Consultant is required to stay in 
Korea not less than 180 days a year." As this condition did not appear in the 
ASEAN -Korea FTA, Are there any amendment s in Korea 's laws and regulations relating 
to this sector?  
 
Response from the d elegation of the Republic of Korea  
 
 Foreign legal consultants are required to stay in Korea not less than 180 days a year due to 
the enactment of Foreign Legal Consultant Act in 2009 . 
 
Annex 8 -D Schedule of Specific Commitments Korea (Page 14)  
Architectur al services (CPC8671)  
 
1.6.  Additional Commitments for Mode 1), 2), and 4) Supply of services by foreign 
architects through joint contracts with architects licensed under Korean laws is allowed.  
 The foreign -certified or licensed architects who have completed a  professional 
practice of five years and are recognized to have an equal professional status as that of 
Korean architects by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport are eligible to 
apply for the Architect Qualifying Examination without having co mpleted the intern 
development program enforced in Korea. They may acquire a Korean architect license by 
passing the following two subjects of the Architect Qualifying Examination (a) 
architectural design I and (b) architectural design II .  
 According to K orea's schedule of specific commitments, Korea has indicated the 
additional commitments for Architectural services (CPC8671) that the foreign architects 
may acquire a Korean architect license by passing the two subjects of the Architect 
Qualifying Examinat ion i.e. (a) architectural design I and (b) architectural design II . 
While the additional commitment for this sector in the ASEAN -Korea FTA defined the 
condition to obtain a Korean architect license by passing a simplified examination which 
covers two subj ects; architectural laws and regulations and architectural design , is 
there any amendment in Korea 's laws and regulations relating to this issue?  
 
Response from the delegation of the Republic of Korea  
 
 Regarding 'architectural design I' and 'architectural  design II' of the Korea -Viet Nam FTA, 
there is no substantial difference between the coverage of these subjects and 'architectural design' 
of the Korea -ASEAN FTA.  
 
 Regarding 'architectural laws and regulations' of the Korea -ASEAN FTA, it was not one of the 
subjects of the Architect Qualifying Examination at the date of entry into force of the Korea -ASEAN 
FTA, but was included in the schedule of commitment s due to the lack of detailed review.  
 
Annex 8 -D Schedule of Specific Commitments Korea (Page 16)  
Research and development services on natural sciences (CPC 851)  
 
1.7.  Limitation on National Treatment Mode 1) For marine scientific research, a foreign 
person, a foreign government, or Korean enterprise owned or controlled by a foreign 
person that intends to cond uct marine scientific research in the territorial water or 
exclusive economic zone of Korea must obtain prior authorization or consent from the 
Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries.  WT/REG371/2  
 
- 4 - 
 
   According to Korea's schedule of specific commitments, Korea has committed 
marine scientific research which was excluded from its commitment under the 
ASEAN -Korea FTA. Would Korea extend the commitment of marine scientific research to 
other ASEAN Member States? Are ther e any particular reasons why the marine scientific 
research is being committed in Mode 1 and not in Mode 3 as well?  
 
Response from the delegation of the Republic of Korea  
 
(1) Marine Scientific Research Act has had provisions that foreigners may conduct marine scientific 
research in the territorial sea and Exclusive Economic Zone of Korea after they have obtained 
permission or consent from the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, since it was enacted in 1995. 
Although Korea has not committed marine scientific research in the Korea -ASEAN FTA, ASEAN 
Member States have not been prohibited from conducting marine scientific research in the 
territorial sea and Exclusive Economic Zone of Korea, provided that it was conducted in accordance 
with Marine Scientific Research Act.  
 
(2) Korea did not make a commitment in Mode 3 of this  Sector due to its sensitivity.  
 
Annex 8 -D Schedule of Specific Commitments Korea (Page 21)  
Other Business Services  
 
1.8.  Notes no. 1 The corporations shall follow the rules for service fees determined and 
announced by the Minister of Employment and Labor.  
 According to Korea's schedule of specific commitments, Korea has indicated the 
notes for Other Business Services sector that "the corporations shall follow the rules for 
service fees determined and announced by the Minister of Employment and Labor ." As 
Korea has indicated the similar note in its schedule of specific commitments under 
ASEAN -Korea FTA that the corporations shall follow the rules for service fees 
determined and announced by the Ministry of Labor , What is the difference between the 
rules announced  by the Minister of Employment and Labor and Ministry of Labor?  
 
Response from the delegation of the Republic of Korea  
 
 There is no difference between the rules announced by the Minister of Employment and 
Labor and the rules announced by the Minister of L abor. The Ministry of Labor changed its name to 
the Ministry of Employment and Labor in 2010.  
 
Annex 8 -D Schedule of Specific Commitments Korea (Page 21)  
Higher Education Services (CPC 923)  
 
1.9.  Limitation on Market Access Mode 3  
-  Only those non -profit sch ool juridical persons 18, established under the 
approval by the Minister of Education may establish education institutions under 
the Minister 's authorization (Intra -company Universities do not need to establish a 
school juridical person).  
-  Only the types  of educational institutions listed in Attachment 2 are allowed.  
-  In the Seoul Metropolitan Area 19 the new establishment, extension, or 
transfer of a higher education institution other than Intra -company Universities 
may be restricted . 
 According to Kor ea's schedule of specific commitments, Korea has indicated 
limitation on market access for Higher Education Services (CPC 923) Mode 3 that only 
the types of educational institutions listed in Attachment 2  are allowed while it has 
referred to Attachment 1  in the similar sector under the ASEAN -Korea FTA. What are the 
differences between Attachment 2 of this document and Attachment 1 of the schedule of 
specific commitment s under the ASEAN -Korea FTA?  
 
 WT/REG371/2  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Response from the delegation of the Republic of Korea  
 
 There is no difference between Attachment 2 of the Korea -Viet Nam FTA and Attachment 1 
of the Korea -ASEAN FTA. There are subtle differences between the texts of both attachments, but 
they have been complemented by stipulations in the schedule of commitments a nd provisions of 
the Higher Education Act.  
 
Competition  
 
1.10.   Paragraph 4.46. In Chapter 11 on competition policy, the Parties agree in 
Article  11.1 to proscribe anti -competitive business conduct with the objective of 
promoting economic efficiency and consumer welfare. The minimum scope of 
competition laws are set out in footnote 1 to Chapter 11. Article 11.2 establishes 
principles of procedural fairness in the application of competition laws. 
Articles  11.5-11.9 provide a framework for the Parties to cooperate, notify, consult and 
provide technical assistance on competition -related matters. The Parties shall also 
promote cooperation on matters related to the implementation of competition laws and 
policy (Article 11.3). Each Party shall ensure that the competition  authority of the Party 
shall endeavour to provide available information to facilitate effective enforcement of its 
competition laws for the purposes of Chapter 11 (Article 11.6). The dispute settlement 
mechanism established by the Agreement is not applica ble to matters arising under 
Chapter 11 (Article 11.10).  
 Article 11.6 of the Agreement  prescribes that the Party shall ensure that the 
competition authority of the Party shall endeavour to provide available information to 
facilitate effective enforcement of its competition laws for the purposes of Chapter 11. 
Thailand would like to inquire whether either Party has provided information pursuant 
to this Article.  
 
Parties reply :  
 Article 11.6 stipulates that information shall be provided upon request of one party. 
However, neither party has requested information exchange in the period of a little bit more than 
one year after the effectuation of the FTA. Therefore, there was no case where information ha d 
been provided based on A rticle 11.6.  
 
__________