The government is fundamentally changing the basic stance of cybersecurity policy. From 2026, punitive fines of up to 3% of revenue will be imposed on companies that repeat security incidents or are negligent in their responses, with plans to legally specify CEO security responsibility. The obligation to disclose information protection will be expanded to all listed companies.
This is not simply a strengthening of punishment. The government has institutionalized the message that "security is not a choice but a core value of corporate management." The question is whether companies are actually prepared for this change.
From 'Post-Incident Response' to 'Pre-Incident Responsibility'
Domestic cybersecurity policy had often remained at cleanup and recommendations after incidents occurred. However, large-scale hacking incidents that occurred successively at telecommunications and platform companies recently revealed the limitations of the existing response system. Using this as an opportunity, the government shifted policy in the direction of asking for responsibility for failing to prevent incidents, not just whether incidents occurred.
Now companies cannot be exempt from liability solely on the grounds that they "were hacked." Whether security investment, personnel deployment, and incident response systems were sufficient becomes the core of legal judgment.
CEO Responsibility Specification, Security That Has Risen to the Board Level
The core of this policy is CEO responsibility. The government plans to specify in legislation that CEOs are responsible for identifying and managing major IT assets, allocating information protection budgets and personnel, and reporting to the board of directors.
This is a measure that elevates security from an IT department issue to the domain of management decision-making. Security incidents are no longer interpreted as staff mistakes but as the results of management judgment. It will inevitably affect the entire corporate governance structure.
Punitive Fines — Only a Problem for Large Corporations?
The figure of 3% of revenue is a risk of hundreds of billions of won for large corporations. However, for mid-sized and small companies it is at a level that threatens their existence. The problem is that these companies have difficulty maintaining the same level of security investment and personnel as large corporations.
The government stated it would promote strengthening of security capabilities along with expanded security disclosure, but the possibility that security gaps will directly lead to market exit has also increased. A structure is created where companies with weak security cannot be chosen by customers and investors.
The Era of Formal Certification Has Ended
The government also announced it would strengthen the effectiveness of existing certification systems such as ISMS. The policy is to intensify inspections centering on on-site investigations and, in cases of serious violations, even consider canceling certification.
This means a transition from 'security to obtain certification' to 'security that actually works.' Document-centered, checklist-centered formal security systems no longer work. Actual incident response capability and internal controls become the core evaluation criteria.
Security Is Not a Cost but Competitiveness
This policy change is both a burden and an opportunity for companies. For companies that perceive security only as a cost, the era of punitive fines may be fatal. Conversely, for companies that perceive security as an element of trust and brand value, it can become a competitive advantage.
Security investment is no longer 'something done when incidents occur.' Designing so incidents don't occur has become the basic condition of corporate management.
The Standard of Preparation Is 'System,' Not 'Technology'
What companies need to check now is not simply whether security solutions have been introduced.
① Does the board and management understand security?
② Is there an organization and authority capable of immediate response when incidents occur?
③ Is security investment and personnel continuously maintained and inspected?
Security competitiveness in the era of punitive fines is an organizational and systems problem, not a technology problem.
Cybersecurity has now become not a shield for companies but a measuring stick for evaluating companies. Companies that have not prepared for security will have difficulty surviving in the market.
