Checklist for Responding to External Meetings under the Anti-Graft Act (For HR Managers)

Responding to the Anti-Graft Act is not merely about verifying monetary limits. HR managers must organize inquiry procedures, record-keeping standards, and internal approval flows in advance to prevent employees from making independent decisions regarding external meetings, meals, gifts, lecture requests, and contact with partner companies. This article summarizes representative situations that HR must address, the 72-hour response flow, and a practical checklist.

short answer

The Anti-Corruption Act, commonly known as the Kim Young-ran Act, is a law designed to protect the fair performance of duties and the trust of public institutions by restricting improper solicitation and the acceptance of money and valuables by public officials. Therefore, in HR practice, one should not only consider "how far is permissible," but also Who provided it, whether it is job-related, whether it is repetitive, whether internal reporting is required, and whether records were kept. You must check together.

In particular, for public institutions, educational institutions, medical institutions, and organizations conducting projects of high public interest, meetings, meals, gifts, requests for consultation, and lectures from external stakeholders can lead to organizational risk. Rather than directly determining legal judgments, HR must establish procedures that allow employees to consult internal representatives regarding ambiguous situations, enabling joint review by the audit, legal, compliance, and HR lines.

When will it be applied?

Responding to the Anti-Graft Act is not limited to gifts or meals exceeding a certain amount. Prior verification may be required in all situations where members meet with external stakeholders, receive proposals for meals or gifts from partner companies, are asked to give external lectures or provide consultation, or interact with complainants or contract counterparties.

situation	Organizational risk	HR verification criteria
Partner Company Meal Proposal	Misunderstanding of job-relatedness and value criteria	Check internal inquiry and approval procedures
Receiving holiday gifts	Misunderstanding of exception scope	Guide to Return and Reporting Standards
External lecture request	Omission of reward money and reporting procedures	Verification of pre-notification and post-supplementation standards
Contact with complainants	Possibility of misunderstanding regarding improper solicitation	Check if official response channels are used
Manager's instructions	Pressure that members find difficult to refuse	Guide to Reporting and Consultation Channels
Providing repeated favors	Misunderstanding of the purpose of forming relationships	Provider, frequency, time, and job-relatedness records

Article 8 of the Anti-Corruption Act stipulates the prohibition of giving and receiving gifts and other valuables, and the judgment structure may vary depending on whether the gift is related to official duties and the monetary threshold. Furthermore, as the permissible value range for items such as food may change following amendments to the Enforcement Decree, HR must verify the latest laws and regulations when issuing internal notices.

What HR Managers Should Do

first, You must create internal standards that members can quickly verify.
Judging that "this amount should be fine" or "as long as the amount doesn't exceed the limit" is the most dangerous approach in practice. A checklist is required to verify the relationship with the provider, job relevance, potential for misunderstanding regarding quid pro quo, repetition, timing, and internal approval status.

Second, You must simplify the inquiry and reporting procedures.
In situations where it is difficult for employees to make a judgment, they need to know who to contact first among HR, Audit, Legal, and Compliance. Since reporting or inquiries may be delayed if responsibilities are scattered across multiple departments, it is advisable to clearly designate a primary point of contact.

Third, You must leave a record standard.
For recurring situations such as external meetings, meal invitations, receiving gifts, and requests for lectures, you must be able to record the provider, date, content, amount, job relevance, and results of the action taken. Without records, it becomes difficult for both the organization and the individual to respond if a problem arises later.

Fourth, We must protect the reporter and the inquirer.
There are times when employees hesitate to ask questions regarding the Anti-Graft Act for fear of appearing like someone who is "making a fuss unnecessarily." HR should explain that the inquiry itself does not lead to disadvantages and that verifying ambiguous situations is a normal procedure for protecting the organization.

72-hour response flow

When inquiries or reports regarding the Anti-Graft Act are received, HR should organize the process in the order of verifying the facts, conducting an internal review, providing guidance on measures, and preventing recurrence, rather than immediately making a legal judgment.

hour	Response phase	Checklist
0~24 hours	Inquiry and Report Receipt	Record of provider, details of money/request, date and time, and possibility of job-relatedness
Within 24 hours	Internal review	Verify Audit, Legal, Compliance, and HR collaboration lines
24~48 hours	Summary of Action Directions	Review return, rejection, report, hold, and additional verification status
48~72 hours	Member Guide	Guide to Prevention of Disadvantage, Inquiry Channels, and Response Standards for Similar Situations
After 72 hours	Prevention of recurrence	Training, FAQ, Administrator Guide, EAP Support Channel Maintenance

This flow is not a procedure intended to replace legal judgment, but rather an internal response standard for the organization to consistently verify ambiguous situations without leaving them unresolved.

Practical Checklist

The items below can be used by HR personnel when reviewing internal compliance standards for the Anti-Corruption Act.

item	check
We confirmed with the audit, legal, and compliance officers whether the Anti-Graft Act applies.	☐
We established internal judgment criteria that members can quickly verify.	☐
We have established a contact point for inquiries regarding external meetings, meals, gifts, and lecture requests.	☐
A record form was prepared to document the provider, amount, job relevance, and results of the action.	☐
Information was provided on situations requiring return, refusal, or reporting.	☐
Provided member guidance sentences to the manager.	☐
A protection message was provided to the reporter and inquirer, stating that there would be no disadvantages.	☐
Situations with frequent recurring inquiries have been compiled into an FAQ.	☐
We have established a channel to support members who experience psychological burden during the process of dealing with external stakeholders.	☐
The EAP counseling channel was connected to the follow-up support system for responding to ethical issues.	☐

Common mistakes

The most common mistake is Judging based solely on the amount In responding to the Anti-Corruption Act, you must verify not only the amount but also the job-relatedness, the relationship with the provider, the timing, repetition, and the possibility of misunderstanding regarding quid pro quo.

The second mistake is Telling members to “make their own judgments” In relationships with external stakeholders, employees may find it difficult to refuse or hesitate to raise issues due to the atmosphere created by their superiors. HR should keep internal inquiry procedures open rather than leaving it to individual judgment.

The third mistake is Not leaving a record Even if a matter is determined to be free of issues, it is advisable to briefly record the details of the inquiry and the results of the actions taken. Records are not intended to punish members, but rather serve as safeguards for subsequent explanations and preventing recurrence.

If EAP support is needed

Issues related to the Anti-Graft Act are not limited to legal or audit departments. Employees who must refuse requests from partners, clients, complainants, or superiors may feel a psychological burden. In particular, they may experience anxiety such as, "Did I make the problem worse?" or "Will I face disadvantages in my work if the relationship deteriorates?"

The EAP is not a legal advisory channel for determining violations of the Anti-Graft Act. However, it can serve as an external support channel for employees experiencing increased stress due to ethical issues, reporting burdens, interpersonal pressure, or internal conflicts. It is advisable for HR to provide guidance on a support system that allows employees to safely manage emotional burdens, separate from legal and audit procedures.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. Is there no problem with the Anti-Corruption Act as long as the monetary limits are adhered to?

No. While the monetary standard is an important factor in judgment, you must also verify job-relatedness, the relationship with the provider, repetition, timing, and the possibility of misunderstanding regarding compensation. In ambiguous cases, it is safer to go through the internal inquiry process rather than making a judgment on your own.

Q2. Do I have to unconditionally refuse a meal proposal from a partner company?

It is difficult to conclude that you must always refuse unconditionally. However, you must verify the business relationship with the provider, the purpose of the meeting, the method of cost sharing, and internal standards. If there are no internal standards, it is advisable to advise consulting with HR, Audit, Legal, or Compliance officers first.

Q3. What should an employee who receives a request for an external lecture check?

For requests for external lectures or consultations, you must verify the honorarium, the requesting organization, the lecture topic, relevance to official duties, and whether reporting is required. Since reporting standards for external lectures under the Anti-Corruption Act may change due to amendments to relevant laws, you must check both the latest laws and internal regulations.

Q4. Must HR directly determine whether there has been a violation of the Anti-Corruption Act?

HR is not required to determine whether a violation has occurred on its own. HR's role is to operate procedures for receiving, recording, internal review, and providing guidance to ensure that employees do not judge problematic situations on their own. Specific legal judgments may require review by audit, legal, or compliance officers, or by external experts.

Q5. Is it okay to provide information on the Anti-Corruption Act training and EAP together?

It is possible. However, EAP should not be described as a channel for legal judgment. It is appropriate to guide people to use EAP as a counseling channel that supports the anxiety, pressure, conflict, and stress experienced by members during the process of responding to ethical issues.

Next step

Responding to the Anti-Graft Act is not merely about providing guidance on the “amounts that are permissible to accept.” To prevent members from making independent judgments in ambiguous situations, internal inquiry procedures, record-keeping standards, manager guidance text, whistleblower protection messages, and psychological support systems must be designed together.

If you want to organize mandatory legal training, ethical risk response, and employee counseling support into a single operational system at the organizational level Nudge EAP Implementation Consultation Review the operating methods that suit our organization through this.

👉 Go to Nudge EAP Implementation Consultation →

Mandatory Workplace Training Overview