On August 8, Seoul’s National Assembly Members’ Office Building played host to a marathon policy seminar, ambitiously titled “Legal Support Measures for Art Market Revitalization.” Co-organized by lawmakers Kim Seung-soo and Park Soo-hyun, the Korea Galleries Association, the Korean Society of Arts & Cultural Law, and Kyungpook National University’s Law Research Institute, the event drew an impressive roster of legal experts, academics, and art industry representatives.
 
Across three tightly packed sessions, speakers tackled some of the most discussed—and most divisive—issues in Korea’s art policy: the introduction of resale royalty rights (droit de suite), a new registration system for “art service businesses,” and tax reforms aimed at incentivizing corporate art purchases. The ambition was clear: to build a legal framework capable of supporting a sustainable and transparent market.

But beneath the five hours of legislative discussion, a deeper critique emerged—one that speaks to a structural blind spot in Korean cultural policymaking.


 
The Policy Agenda: Rights, Registration, and Revenue

The first session, led by U.S. attorney Yu Kyung Lee of Danziger Law, set the tone by unpacking the logic behind resale royalties, reviewing international precedents, and proposing a Korean model. While the intent drew broad agreement, panelists such as Professor Jae-min Lee (Changwon National University) and Baek Dong-jae (Korea Galleries Association) urged caution, pointing to the mixed results of similar systems abroad and the risk of dampening market activity.
 
The second session shifted focus to the constitutional legitimacy and market impact of registering art service providers. Researcher Joo Min-ho (Kyungpook National University) argued that without a clear, socially accepted definition of what constitutes a gallery—or its role—regulation could become a blunt instrument, eroding autonomy rather than fostering transparency.
 
In the third session, tax accountant Kwon Min called for targeted tax incentives for corporate art acquisitions, framing artworks not merely as private assets but as cultural public goods. Professors Hwang Heon-soon and Lee Chang-kyu backed the idea, identifying tax reform as a potential driver of market growth.


 
A Familiar Problem: Policy Without Groundwork

Yet for many observers, the proceedings carried a familiar flaw. The legislative machinery was turning—but without the raw material of real market data. “If the basic framework is out of step with reality, revising individual clauses will achieve little,” one gallery owner noted. “The law may change, but the market will remain the same.”
 
This gap between legislative theory and market reality is hardly new. Similar critiques have dogged other policy seminars under the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, where programs often prioritize measurable short-term deliverables and report-friendly outcomes over probing the root causes of low trust, opaque transactions, and the underdevelopment of distribution channels.


 
The Missing Step: Systematic Field Verification

Experts at the seminar outlined what they see as an essential precursor to any legislative design: institutionalizing field verification. Proposals included:
 
- Nationwide public hearings by art genre and market scale
- Real-name surveys to capture transactional patterns, tax awareness, and experiences with existing laws
- Mandatory incorporation of hearing outcomes into legislative drafts
- A “no armchair policymaking” principle, prioritizing on-the-ground data over theoretical projections
 
In his closing remarks, Kim Seong-ryong, president of the Korean Society of Arts & Cultural Law, called for legislation to be understood “not as regulation, but as a tool for balancing the ecosystem.”


 
Beyond the Shape of the Law

As a discussion of legal and fiscal levers, the seminar was substantive. But as a roadmap for revitalizing Korea’s art market, it fell short. By keeping the conversation largely within the boundaries of existing legislative frameworks, the event risked reinforcing the very disconnect it aimed to bridge.
 
If “revitalization” is to be more than a policy slogan, the priority must shift from perfecting the form of the law to nurturing the ground in which it must take root. Without that grounding, even the most elegantly drafted provisions will fail to change the lived reality of the Korean art market.