Over recent years, there have been numerous debates among various members from the Korean legal community in discussing whether the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act(“MRFTA”) currently effective in Korea, as it pertains to regulating the unfair trade practices of business enterprises (the “Competition Statute”), contains sufficient mechanisms to provide adequate remedies to injured parties in Competition Statute violation cases. Despite all efforts exerted by the Fair Trade Commission(“FTC”) in enforcing the Competition Statute, there seems to be an obvious limit as to what it can do, which appears to be caused by the following three main factors: (i) a general perception that governmental regulatory efforts should be contained; (ii) a general perception that corrective orders are overly intrusive; and (iii) cultural indifference in resorting to legal remedies. There are measures that may be taken to overcome such barriers which limit both the regulatory body and injured parties, which include such measures as introducing treble damage compensation, lowering the barrier of commencing a legal action, allowing injunctive orders, and introducing a Parens Patriae action or Consent Decree system. Over recent years, there have been numerous debates among various individuals from the Korean legal community in relation to the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (“MRFTA”). Among the various issues that come up in such debates, one pertains to the effectiveness of a part of the MRFTA which is related to regulating the unfair trade practices of business enterprises (the “Competition Statute” or “Statute”). In particular, discussions arise in terms of whether the current Statute contains sufficient mechanisms to provide adequate remedies to injured parties in Competition Statute violation cases. In that regard, this article will review some of the issues that arise in such discussions. In doing so, this article has been divided into three main sections. The first section will illustrate the types of remedies the Statute currently affords to injured parties. Thereafter, the second section will provide a brief discussion on certain factors that limit the FTC’s efforts in providing appropriate remedies to injured parties. The last section will provide a discussion on potential measures that may be taken to improve the remedial measures in future cases.