Korea JoongAng Daily - Daily News from Korea

This article is by Sarah Chea and read by an artificial voice.

한국의 대표 영어신문, 코리아중앙데일리가 특종과 단독 인터뷰, 주요 기사를 한글로 요약해 드립니다. 독자들의 많은 성원 바랍니다.

지난해 한국의 미국산 원유 수입량이 1억7489만 배럴로 집계되며 사상 최고치를 기록했다. 이는 도널드 트럼프 행정부가 관세 협상 과정에서 강조한 원유 수출 확대 기조의 영향으로 보인다. 특히 지난 관세 협상에서 한국이 1000억 달러 상당의 미국산 에너지 제품을 구매하기로 약속한 만큼, 올해 미국산 원유 수입은 더욱 가파르게 늘어날 전망이다.

4일 한국석유공사에 따르면 지난해 한국이 미국에서 들여온 원유 수입량은 1억7489만 배럴로 역대 최대였던 전년(1억6841만 배럴)을 넘어섰다. 수입액은 128억7831만 달러(약 18조6000억원)에 달한다. 이에 따라 미국은 부동의 최대 공급국인 사우디아라비아(3억4543만 배럴)에 이어 한국의 두 번째 원유 공급국으로 떠올랐다.

미국산 원유 수입 물량 비중도 17%를 넘어섰다. 1위 사우디아라비아(33.6%)와는 격차가 있지만, 아랍에미리트(1억1699만 배럴), 이라크(1억695만 배럴), 쿠웨이트(8744만 배럴) 등 원유 수출 경쟁국를 따돌리고 2위로 올라섰다.

같은 기간 캐나다산 원유 수입도 크게 늘었다. 2024년 137만 배럴에 그쳤던 수입량은 지난해 454만 배럴로 약 230% 급증했다. 한국이 원가 절감과 수입선 다변화를 추진하는 과정에서 미국·중동산보다 최대 10~15% 저렴한 가격 경쟁력을 갖춘 캐나다산 원유 도입에 속도가 붙었다.

미국산 원유는 물리적 거리로 인해 운송비 부담이 크다. 미국 서부에서 한국까지 운송에는 최대 50일이 소요돼 중동산(최대 30일)보다 20일가량 더 걸린다. 국내 정유 공정이 중동산 중질유에 맞춰 설계돼 있어, 상대적으로 가벼운 미국산 경질유는 처리 과정에서 가동률이 떨어질 수 있다는 점도 단점이다.

그럼에도 미국산 원유 수입이 늘어난 배경에는 트럼프 행정부의 통상 압박이라는 정책적 요인이 크게 작용했다. 트럼프 행정부는 관세를 지렛대로 미국산 에너지 수입 확대를 지속적으로 요구해왔다. 실제로 트럼프 대통령은 인도에 50% 관세를 부과했다가, 인도가 러시아산 원유 수입 중단과 미국산 원유 구매 확대를 약속하자 관세율을 18%로 대폭 낮췄다.

과거 한국의 미국산 원유 수입이 본격적으로 늘기 시작한 시점은 트럼프 행정부 1기(2017년 1월~2021년 1월)다. 출범 직전인 2016년 한국의 미국산 원유 수입량은 245만 배럴로 전체의 0.2%에 불과했지만, 2017년 1343만 배럴(1%대)로 늘었고 2018년 6094만 배럴(5.5%), 2019년 1억3789만 배럴(13%)로 급증했다.

김대종 세종대 경영학부 교수는 "지난해 한국의 대미 무역흑자는 약 80조원에 달한다"며 "트럼프 대통령이 이를 줄이려는 상황에서 미국산 원유 수입 확대는 한국이 선택할 수 있는 현실적인 대응책 가운데 하나"라고 말했다.

미국산 원유의 수입 비중은 올해 더 빠르게 증가할 전망이다. 지난해 7월 열린 한·미 관세 협상에서 한국은 트럼프 임기 동안 1000억 달러 규모의 미국산 에너지 제품 구매에 합의했으며, 이 가운데 상당 부분이 원유로 알려졌다. 산업통상부에서 석유 수입을 담당하는 한 관계자는 "국가 차원의 원유 수입은 비축유 물량으로, 기존 중동산 비축분 일부를 미국산으로 대체할 계획"이라고 설명했다. 한국석유공사는 지난해 중동산 중질유 600만 배럴을 미국산 경질유로 대체했다.

정부 정책에 정유업계도 호응할 가능성이 크다. 미국산 원유는 한·미 자유무역협정(FTA)에 따라 3% 관세가 면제된다. 여기에 수입선 다변화를 위해 운송비 부담이 큰 미국산 원유를 들여올 경우, 중동산과의 비용 차액 일부를 보전하는 제도도 운영되고 있다.

지난해 기준 국가별 원유 수입 단가를 살펴보면, 미국산은 배럴당 73.64달러로 사우디아라비아(73.80달러), 아랍에미리트(75.11달러)보다 낮았다. 한 정유업계 관계자는 "경제성이 확보된다면 미국산 원유 수입을 확대하지 않을 이유가 없다"며 "운송·환율 등 불리한 요소가 있지만, 한미 통상 등 정부 차원의 필요가 있다면 협조할 수 있는 부분"이라고 말했다.

영어 원문

Korea's imports of U.S. crude oil hit a record high of 174.9 million barrels last year, according to government data, due primarily to U.S. President Donald Trump's push to expand energy exports through tariff negotiations.

With Korea pledging to purchase $100 billion worth of U.S. energy products in the next four years as part of the tariff deal, Korea's U.S. crude imports are anticipated to jump further this year.

Korea imported 174.89 million barrels of crude oil from the United States last year, comfortably surpassing the previous record of 168.4 million barrels set a year earlier, according to data from the Korea National Oil Corporation.

By value, it reached $12.9 billion.

The United States accounted for 17 percent of Korea's crude oil imports in 2025 — second only to Saudi Arabia at 33.6 percent, and higher than the United Arab Emirates at 11.4 percent, Iraq at 10.4 percent and Kuwait at 8.5 percent.

Imports of Canadian crude oil also surged, rising nearly 230 percent to 4.54 million barrels last year, as Korea eyes Canada as a way to diversify its supply chain. Canadian oil is around 10 to 15 percent cheaper than oil from the United States and the Middle East.

Imports of U.S. crude oil entail logistical and operational drawbacks, with the longer shipping distance being the most significant. Shipments from the U.S. West Coast to Korea typically take up to 50 days, compared to roughly 30 days from the Middle East. Even after arrival, refiners struggle to refine the lighter U.S. crude as local infrastructure is primarily calibrated for heavier Middle Eastern oil.

Despite the disadvantages, imports of American crude have continued to rise, driven by Washington's intensified demands for greater purchases of U.S. energy. In one high-profile case, Trump imposed a 50 percent tariff on India but later cut it to 18 percent after securing a tangible c...

This article is by Sarah Chea and read by an artificial voice.

Korea's imports of U.S. crude oil hit a record high of 174.9 million barrels last year, according to government data, due primarily to U.S. President Donald Trump's push to expand energy exports through tariff negotiations.

With Korea pledging to purchase $100 billion worth of U.S. energy products in the next four years as part of the tariff deal, Korea's U.S. crude imports are anticipated to jump further this year.

Korea imported 174.89 million barrels of crude oil from the United States last year, comfortably surpassing the previous record of 168.4 million barrels set a year earlier, according to data from the Korea National Oil Corporation.

By value, it reached $12.9 billion.

The United States accounted for 17 percent of Korea's crude oil imports in 2025 — second only to Saudi Arabia at 33.6 percent, and higher than the United Arab Emirates at 11.4 percent, Iraq at 10.4 percent and Kuwait at 8.5 percent.

Imports of Canadian crude oil also surged, rising nearly 230 percent to 4.54 million barrels last year, as Korea eyes Canada as a way to diversify its supply chain. Canadian oil is around 10 to 15 percent cheaper than oil from the United States and the Middle East.

Despite the disadvantages, imports of American crude have continued to rise, driven by Washington's intensified demands for greater purchases of U.S. energy. In one high-profile case, Trump imposed a 50 percent tariff on India but later cut it to 18 percent after securing a tangible commitment from New Delhi to halt imports of Russian crude and expand purchases of U.S. oil.

"A substantial expansion of U.S. crude oil imports could emerge as one of Korea's viable options to address pressure from Trump, who wishes to narrow the U.S. trade deficit with Korea, which stood at around 80 trillion won [$55 billion] last year," said Kim Dae-jong, a business professor at Sejong University.

In fact, Korea's imports of U.S. crude oil sharply increased during Trump's first term, which ran from January 2017 to January 2021. Korea imported only 2.4 million barrels of U.S. crude in 2016, accounting for a mere 0.2 percent of total imports, but that figure rose to 13.4 million barrels in 2017, 60.9 million barrels in 2018 and 137.9 million barrels in 2019.

"Crude purchases at the national level are largely intended for strategic stockpiles, and we plan to replace part of those reserves — traditionally sourced from the Middle East — with U.S. crude," an official at the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Resources, told the Korea JoongAng Daily.

The Korea National Oil Corporation last year alone substituted 6 million barrels of Middle Eastern heavy crude in its strategic reserves with oil from the United States.

Under the Korea–U.S. FTA, American crude oil is exempt from a 3 percent tariff. The government offers partial compensation for the cost differential when refiners import higher-transport-cost crude, relative to cheaper-to-ship Middle Eastern grades.

The average import price of U.S. crude was $73.64 a barrel, lower than Saudi crude at $73.80 and United Arab Emirates crude at $75.11.

"If the economics make sense, there is no reason not to expand imports of U.S. crude," said an industry source from a domestic refinery. "There are disadvantages related to transportation and currency exchange, but if there is a broader policy need tied to Korea–U.S. trade relations, that is an area where we can cooperate."

The author is a professor of business administration at Furman University and author of "The Story of Tariffs" (2025).

On March 26, 1980, the luxury jeweler Tiffany placed an unusual advertisement in The New York Times. It accused an unnamed actor of hoarding silver, a precious metal, and driving up the prices of baby spoons and teaspoons, harming ordinary consumers. The ad was striking not only for its tone but for the fact that a venerable retailer was publicly condemning market manipulation.

Wall Street already knew who Tiffany was referring to. The culprits were the Hunt brothers, who had amassed vast quantities of silver and reaped astronomical profits. After oil tycoon H.L. Hunt died in 1974, two of his sons inherited a large fortune and turned aggressively to silver.

Their bet was rooted in macroeconomic anxiety. When President Richard Nixon ended the gold standard in 1971, the brothers predicted a collapse in the dollar's value. The oil shock sent crude prices soaring and inflation into double digits, reinforcing their conviction. Silver, they believed, offered protection against the erosion of paper money.

Silver had only recently begun trading freely as a commodity. In 1965, the U.S. government stopped minting silver coins. Until then, it had capped the price of silver used for coinage at $1.29 an ounce. Rising industrial demand, including from photographic film, pushed intrinsic value above the official price, and melting coins for bullion became common. By 1974, silver had surpassed $5 an ounce.

Even the legendary investor Warren Buffett recognized the imbalance between supply and demand and accumulated silver in the late 1960s, earning several times his investment. The Hunt brothers went much further. Pooling family capital, they bought roughly 100 million ounces, about half of all privately held silver worldwide, and aggressively added futures contracts. By 1980, their total silver position reached $4.5 billion. Much of it was leveraged with borrowed funds. Of that sum, only about $1 billion was their own money. Their long futures positions accounted for 69 percent of all silver contracts on the New York Commodities Exchange, giving them effective control over price direction. In January 1980, silver peaked at $48 an ounce, several times its earlier levels.

The day after Tiffany's advertisement ran, exchanges announced new restrictions on silver futures. Only liquidation of existing positions was allowed, while new purchases were banned, and margin requirements were sharply raised.

The shock sent silver plunging to $11 an ounce. In a single Thursday, half its value vanished. The Hunt brothers lost $1.7 billion. Buffett, who had invested on fundamentals, exited with gains. The Hunts, focused only on price momentum, were ruined. The episode is old, but its lesson remains timely.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.

The author is the CEO of the U.S. Studies Centre at the University of Sydney and the Henry A. Kissinger Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

In January, U.S. President Donald Trump delivered the most unsettling series of provocations U.S. allies have faced in a generation. After the seizure of Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro, Trump claimed he would next take Greenland from Denmark, a loyal and democratic NATO ally, and even suggested that military options could not be ruled out. At home, heavy-handed actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Minnesota led to the killing of two peaceful protesters, while the same agency sent officials to police the Winter Olympics in Italy. Anti-Trump protests in Europe were almost as intense as those in Minnesota, underscoring the breadth of allied anger.

By January, frustration among America's European partners reached a tipping point. At the Davos Forum, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney drew a standing ovation by condemning the bullying behavior of great powers, implicitly likening Trump to China's leader Xi Jinping, and arguing that middle powers such as Canada needed to band together. In the same spirit, two former Biden administration national security officials wrote in the January issue of Foreign Affairs that Trump would only grow more disruptive and that U.S. allies therefore needed a "Plan B" to secure themselves without Washington.

There is no doubt that Trump's behavior has forced allies to confront uncomfortable questions about whether the U.S.-led alliance system remains viable. Yet talk of a genuine Plan B, or of middle powers somehow going it alone without the United States, amounts to fantasy. Neither Carney nor the Foreign Affairs authors explained how such an alternative security architecture would actually function. The reason is straightforward: any Plan B would be prohibitively costly, risky and ultimately inferior to what already exists.

First, it is a mistake to build a long-term strategy around Trump's frenetic statements and social media posts. The uproar over Greenland subsided quickly once stock markets and Republican lawmakers signaled their opposition, prompting Trump to back down. Similar dynamics played out after domestic backlash to immigration enforcement in Minnesota. Trump is unlikely to abandon his trademark "shock and awe" political style, but with each new shock, the public and Congress appear less awed. While this volatility corrodes alliance confidence, it is not a politically sustainable trajectory for U.S. foreign policy over the long run.

Second, American public opinion remains broadly supportive of alliances, even if it is skeptical of Trump's tactics. Polls consistently show strong backing for alliances with Korea, NATO, Japan and Australia, despite or perhaps because of Trump's confrontational approach. When Trump threatened to annex Canada, 85 percent of Americans said they respected and liked their northern neighbor, a figure more than double Trump's own approval rating. Americans do want allies to shoulder more responsibility for their own defense, but there is little appetite for openly bullying them.

Third, the economic and strategic costs of a Plan B would be immense. Carney's defiant rhetoric earned applause, but Canada spends far less per capita on defense than the United States and would struggle to defend itself without American support. The same holds for Europe. As NATO's secretary general has repeatedly warned, European countries cannot effectively defend themselves alone. While defense spending is rising on both sides of the Atlantic, it remains far below what would be required for independent military action. Closing that gap would demand deep cuts to social welfare systems, sacrifices that electorates in Canada and Europe are unlikely to accept.

Fourth, the existing alliance system — Plan A — is not only intact but increasingly integrated. The U.S. military today is more closely linked w...

The author is the head of the editorial board at the JoongAng Ilbo.

To avoid misunderstanding, let me state this upfront. I own a single home and have held it for a long time. I have neither the means nor the inclination to buy additional property. I simply hope housing prices will be stabilized quickly so the market can settle. I have no desire to see government real estate policy fail. I am not someone who has sold his soul to evil spirits.

President Lee Jae Myung has been issuing resolute messages on social media day after day. Having delivered the long-doubted Kospi 5,000, his confidence suggests that reining in housing prices should be no harder. His tone recalls the urgency once voiced by former President Roh Moo-hyun, who said that even if real estate prices rose everywhere else in the world, they should not rise in Korea. Yet by now, Koreans have learned that determination and will alone cannot guarantee outcomes in housing.

The decision to end the grace period for heavier capital gains taxes on owners of multiple homes is one policy tool available to the government. In the short term, the aim is likely to induce listings and cool price momentum. At a deeper level, it reflects the Democratic Party's long-held belief that unearned income, typified by real estate gains among multi-home owners, should be recaptured through higher taxation. Real estate cannot be moved to where demand arises. New supply lags behind demand, and land, unlike manufactured goods, is finite. When a housing minister under former President Moon Jae-in said that if apartments were bread, they would bake them overnight, the remark was not wrong in itself. Regulating those who own more land or housing than others and asking them to pay relatively higher taxes within reasonable bounds is not inherently problematic.

What is harder to accept is a view that casts all multi-home owners as devils who squeeze tears from the eyes of young people without homes. Some may indeed exploit policy loopholes and deploy financial engineering to hoard apartments and distort markets. But far more people own more than one home for reasons society can tolerate. If they rent to those without homes at reasonable rates and faithfully pay the taxes due, they serve a social function by helping sustain the housing ladder. That is the double face of multi-home ownership.

After the president described the current window as a "last chance to escape," critics asked what that made presidential aides. Just as not all multi-home owners are devils, aides cannot be branded as such merely for owning more than one home. Unless they are predatory speculators, there is little reason to single them out. If they truly were devils, it would mean the president appointed them without proper scrutiny. If they were indeed unscrupulous, they should not remain aides even if they sell property before May 9. One does not keep devils on staff simply because they repent. News that some aides sold homes at the crossroads between "house" and "office" therefore carries a bittersweet irony. Korea has seen such scenes before under the previous administration and remembers how little they achieved. One aide reportedly sold a home in Yongin while keeping one in Gangnam. Most multi-home owners would make the same choice. The impact on Gangnam prices would be negligible, while the gap between Gangnam and other areas could widen further.

Viewing the world through a rigid moral binary may work in religion or ethics, but it fits poorly as a lens for politics or economics. Few policy arenas entangle interests and ideology as tightly as real estate. Policymakers may insist that apartments are homes, not money. In reality, they are both shelters and objects of desire, assets whose prices fluctuate and are therefore inevitable targets of investment. This is not unique to Korea but a global phenomenon. Only by acknowledging this reality can sound policy emerge.

Adam Smith captured the point succinctly in "The We...

President Lee Jae Myung met with the heads of Korea's 10 largest conglomerates at the Blue House on Wednesday and likened the economy to an ecosystem, saying that grass, grasshoppers and rabbits must all exist for a tiger to remain healthy. As the president suggested, growth should allow its benefits to be shared more broadly by small businesses, regional communities and young people. In response, the business community unveiled investment plans totaling 300 trillion won ($206 million), including 270 trillion won earmarked for projects outside the Seoul metropolitan area over the next five years.

While large companies appear eager to answer the president's call, they have reasons for concern. They are already under pressure from the Trump administration in the United States, which has wielded tariffs to push for more investment, while domestic worries about industrial hollowing out persist. As the president has often stressed, the government must build legal and institutional infrastructure that allows companies to invest in regional areas without undue burden, while improving living conditions through education and cultural facilities. Just as commercial rationality should guide Korea's investment decisions abroad, the same principle must hold for corporate investment at home. Designing that framework is the government's responsibility.

It is not clear that the ruling party is fulfilling its role in creating a business-friendly environment. The Democratic Party has announced plans to pass a third revision to the Commercial Act this month that would mandate the cancellation of treasury shares. Business groups warn that applying the rule uniformly, including to so-called involuntary treasury shares acquired during mergers or restructuring, could have serious side effects. Forced cancellation would amount to a capital reduction. Under commercial law, changes to a company's assets can trigger creditor protection procedures, allowing lenders to raise interest rates, alter loan terms or demand early repayment, threatening financial stability.

The Korea Listed Companies Association estimates that 933 of the country's 2,417 listed firms could be exposed to such creditor pressure. Over the medium-to-long term, this could undermine shareholder value and hinder necessary industrial restructuring.

While the third revision of the Commercial Act is moving quickly, little progress has been made on reforming the breach of trust provisions that companies have long criticized. The offense is widely seen as overly constraining managerial judgment. Compared to other countries, Korea's strict punishment for breach of trust has been criticized for delaying corporate decision-making and discouraging innovative management. Those concerns should not be dismissed lightly.

If the government is serious about fostering an economic ecosystem where all participants can thrive, improving the overall business environment must go beyond symbolic gestures. Without addressing legal risks that weigh on corporate decision-making, calls for investment may ring hollow.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.

This article is by Seo Ji-eun and read by an artificial voice.

China has recently relocated a contentious maritime management platform from disputed waters in the Yellow Sea, a step hailed in Seoul as meaningful toward restoring bilateral ties.

Yet a closer look at China's emphasis on the relocation being a decision made by a private entity also suggests a calculated diplomatic move aimed at securing strategic gains while deflecting responsibility.

Experts in Seoul caution that China's underlying position has not fundamentally changed — namely, its insistence that the remaining structures are lawful civilian aquaculture facilities that need not be dismantled. They warn that Beijing's moves reflect a deliberate strategic calculation rather than a policy shift.

Relocation of the most contentious facility

The Chinese maritime management platform, called Atlantic Amsterdam, has been widely viewed by Korean experts as the most contentious of the structures for potential dual-use purposes.

Converted from an oil-drilling rig, the semi-fixed installation features a helipad and can house over 20 personnel.

Such features fueled concerns that even if it was operated as a civilian facility in peacetime, the platform could be converted for military or surveillance purposes in a contingency.

China suddenly began relocating the Atlantic Amsterdam platform out of the PMZ on the night of Jan. 27, according to a notice issued by the Weihai Maritime Safety Administration.

The relocation was also independently confirmed through satellite imagery analyzed by the Washington-based think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), in its Beyond Parallel report released the day before.

"The management facility matched the concerns raised by the Korean military," said Lee Dong-gyu, a research fellow and China expert at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies. "By moving this specific structure, China intends to alleviate Seoul's immediate security concerns and lower our vigilance."

However, the think tank also found that the two other deep-sea aquaculture platforms, Shenlan 1 and Shenlan 2, continue to operate inside the PMZ.

A 'business decision'

The relocation followed an agreement reached upon during a summit between Korean President Lee Jae Myung and Chinese President Xi Jinping on Jan. 5.

Both sides reached a "natural consensus" that the large management rig, given its sensitivity, should be addressed first, a diplomatic source said.

Kang Young-shin, director-general for Northeast Asian affairs at Korea's Foreign Ministry, lauded the rig's relocation as "a change that will aid the development of Korea–China relations."

China's public messaging, however, portrayed the move as a company-led decision to avoid admitting state involvement, which could potentially undercut its longstanding legal and diplomatic arguments.

"We've learned that a Chinese company is moving the platform," China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said on Jan. 27, describing it as "an adjustment made by the company itself to meet the needs of its operation and development."

He added that China's broader stance on the "aquacultural facilities in the southern Yellow Sea remains unchanged."

The Korean government has refrained from publicly challenging China's explanation.

"The relocation of the management platform itself is a meaningful development coming amid efforts to stabilize bilateral relations," a senior Korean Foreign Ministry official said, underscoring that the move had Beijing's consent regardless of how it was packaged.

Beijing's characteristic approach

Some experts in Seoul point out that China is deliberately trying to avoid international criticism by refraining from making claims to the Yellow Sea.

"Beijing's decision to frame the relocation as a company-driven move was intended to distance the Chinese government from accusations that it is using offshore structures to expand state influence or turn the Yellow Sea into de facto inter...

This article is by Lee So-jin and read by an artificial voice.

A black robot vacuum rolled across the floor, scanning for dirt with a green beam of light. When it detected a stain, it scrubbed again and again until it disappeared. When it encountered pet waste, it steered away.

The demonstration took place on Jan. 22 at The Hyundai Seoul in Yeouido, western Seoul, where Dyson introduced its first robot vacuum cleaner to the Korean market. Nathan Lawson McLean, a senior design manager on Dyson's home robotics software team, presented the company's new Spot+Scrub AI Robot vacuum.

For Dyson, the launch marks a late but deliberate entry into one of Korea's most competitive consumer electronics markets, with the new robot reflecting a shift in strategy.

Dyson redesigned the product from the inside out. The water tank is transparent, allowing users to see water flow during cleaning. Artificial intelligence sits at the core. The robot identifies different types of stains and liquids and can repeat its cleaning cycle up to 15 times if necessary, McLean said.

Korea's robot vacuum market has become one of the most fiercely contested appliance sectors, more crowded than even electric vehicles, industry sources say.

Chinese brands control more than 60 percent of the market. Roborock leads the pack, followed by Ecovacs, Xiaomi, Dreame and Narwal. Samsung Electronics holds about 20 percent, while LG Electronics accounts for roughly 9 percent.

Chinese manufacturers compete aggressively on both price and technology. Their models can climb over floor thresholds, map rooms with precision and avoid obstacles with ease. Product lineups span a wide range, from about 400,000 won to more than 2 million won ($275 to $1,400).

Last May, Roborock drew attention by unveiling the Saros Z70, the world's first robot vacuum equipped with a five-axis robotic arm capable of picking up socks and small toys.

Samsung and LG are fighting back at the premium end. Samsung highlighted its "AI Home" ecosystem at this year's CES with the Bespoke AI Steam Robot Vacuum. LG has emphasized hygiene, promoting high-temperature steam cleaning with its Objet Station lineup.

At a large electronics store in Eunpyeong District, northern Seoul, shelves are now lined with robot vacuums priced well above 1.5 million won.

"In the past, differences in suction power and basic functions mattered," a store employee said. "Now, AI features and prices are similar. Brand recognition is what drives purchases."

Dyson priced its new robot vacuum at 1.79 million won. Samsung and LG also sell models priced above 1.5 million won.

According to a Korea Gallup survey conducted in July 2025, robot vacuum penetration in Korea reached 24 percent. The market is valued at roughly 6.5 trillion won. Since 2020, one in four households has adopted a robot vacuum, fueling rapid growth.

Industry experts say the market is now entering a mature phase. Among working professionals in their 30s, robot vacuums are grouped with dishwashers and clothes dryers as three essential household helpers.

"Robot vacuums opened a new market by combining traditional cleaning with AI," said Jung Tae-kyung, a professor of AI convergence at Hallym University. "They are leading a broader transformation, where new technologies reshape existing home appliances."

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.

This article is by Cho Jung-woo and read by an artificial voice.

Should employers be legally barred from asking job applicants where they went to school?

The question has resurfaced in Korea as lawmakers and civic groups push to expand fair hiring rules, saying that recruitment centered on academic background is deepening people's reliance on private education and widening social gaps. But previous attempts for the same cause suggest the effects may be more complicated.

The debate was reignited last September after Rep. Kang Deuk-gu of the ruling Democratic Party proposed a bill that would prohibit employers from asking applicants about their education level, alma mater or religion. The bill remains pending before the National Assembly's Climate, Energy, Environment and Labor Committee.

On Jan. 20, more than 300 civic and education groups held a press conference at the National Assembly, urging lawmakers to swiftly pass an amendment to the Framework Act on Employment Policy.

Employers are currently barred from requesting information about a candidate's appearance, place of origin, marital status or assets. Article 7 of the law reads, "In recruiting and employing workers, business owners shall not discriminate against them on grounds of gender, religion, age, [...] level of education, educational background, marriage, pregnancy, medical history, etc. [...] without reasonable grounds and shall guarantee equal opportunities for employment."

The proposed revision would add academic background and religious affiliation to that list, marking the most sweeping expansion of hiring restrictions in years.

The push comes amid growing concern over Korea's education arms race. Admission to the country's most elite universities — known collectively as "SKY" for Seoul National University, Korea University and Yonsei University — is widely seen as a prerequisite for professional success. That perception has helped drive private education spending to record levels. In 2024, households spent 29 trillion won ($20 billion) on private tutoring and academies, the fourth consecutive annual increase and the highest total on record.

Supporters of the bill say that limiting the importance of academic credentials in hiring may help weaken the link between educational opportunities and career outcomes. Critics counter that removing academic information from the hiring process may lead to employers misjudging employees' capabilities and do little to reduce the concentration of graduates from elite universities in the workforce.

From blind recruitment to legal mandate

Korea has already experimented with restricting academic information through so-called blind recruitment. Beginning in 2017 under the Moon Jae-in administration, public institutions were instructed not to ask for photos, family backgrounds and academic credentials from prospects and instead rely on job-related tests and interviews.

The reform, however, largely remains confined to the public sector. The proposed bill would transform what has so far been a policy guideline into a legal obligation and extend it to private companies as well.

The results of blind recruitment offer mixed signals. After the policy was introduced, the range of universities represented among successful applicants to public institutions widened. Among hires at 223 public institutions and state-owned enterprises, the share of graduates from SKY fell from 8 percent in 2016 to 5.3 percent in 2019. The proportion of hires from nonmetropolitan universities rose from 43.7 percent to 53.1 percent, and the share of women increased from 34 percent to 39 percent.

At the same time, analysts caution that these shifts cannot be attributed solely to blind recruitment since regional hiring quotas and other measures were introduced alongside the policy, making it difficult to isolate its effects.

A 2023 study by the Korea Research Institute for Vocational Education and Training found that the influence of academic background on ...

This article is by Lee Jae-lim and read by an artificial voice.

[NEWS ANALYSIS]

Samsung's priciest smartphone has sparked polarized reactions at home, with opinions split along a simple line: whether the product is more of a phone or tablet. Many users have dismissed it as being too heavy and impractical for everyday use, but those who treat the phone as more of a compact tablet say the 3.59 million won ($2,463) price is well worth it, applauding Samsung's bold first step into a new form factor.

Samsung Electronics' Galaxy Z TriFold went on sale for $2,899 in the United States on Friday, marking the most expensive model in Samsung's smartphone lineup. The first drop sold out immediately. Meanwhile, in the smartphone manufacturer's hometown of Korea, the product has already sold out six times since its debut on Dec. 12, 2025, and early adopters and tech enthusiasts who failed to secure a unit continue to express their envy online.

Compiling interviews and online reviews from local owners who have used the device for over a month, the following outlines the key advantages and drawbacks and examines which types of people are best suited for this "phone."

A gamer's playground and a productivity booster

The defining feature of the trifold phone is its display, which, when fully unfolded, measures 10 inches. Reviewers say the expansive screen makes the device especially appealing to gamers and those looking for a portable secondary display that still functions as a smartphone.

Tech YouTuber "Amazing ddongchan," along with numerous online reviewers, unanimously cited the large screen as the device's biggest strength.

"It's especially great for gaming," he told the Korea JoongAng Daily. "If you carry a controller, [the phone] almost feels like a console. Even games that are usually hard to enjoy on mobile, such as auto battlers, become genuinely fun and accessible anytime, anywhere."

While webtoons and e-books were widely expected to benefit from the trifold format, reviewers noted that some apps struggled with aspect ratio issues. Despite the expanded screen, certain popular apps — including Instagram and Coupang — do not fully support landscape mode, limiting users' experience.

"The phone feels best suited for people already familiar with the Galaxy Tab," ITSub said in a video review. "We particularly recommend it to freelancers who want to combine the functions of a smartphone and a tablet."

In summary, the TriFold works best for users who want tablet-like functionality without relying on the S Pen. For those doing more demanding or specialized work, traditional tablets, laptops or desktops remain the better choice.

Too heavy for a phone, too light for a tablet

The device's biggest but unavoidable drawback is its weight. At 309 grams (10.9 ounces), it is noticeably heavier than conventional smartphones. When folded, it measures 12.9 millimeters (0.51 inches) thick, making it bulky in pockets and difficult to fit into standard cases, which are already hard to find for such a niche product.

This weight affects portability. Reviewers generally agreed that the device is best used while seated and feels uncomfortable for casual, on-the-go use. For comparison, the Galaxy S25 Ultra weighs 218 grams, while the iPhone 17 Pro Max comes in at 231 grams. That said, the TriFold remains lighter than most tablets: The Galaxy Tab S11 weighs 469 grams, and the 11-inch iPad weighs 477 grams.

One user who reportedly used the phone for over three weeks described the experience as unexpectedly restrictive but not entirely negative.

"The most uncomfortable part was that I couldn't really use it while walking around," they wrote. "But that had an upside. Since it was too bulky to carry and I was worried about damaging a new device, I stopped using it while moving. It actually helped reduce my smartphone addiction. I only use it when I'm properly sitting down."

Battery life also surfaced as a concern. Although the device features a 5,600 milliamper...