한국 반도체 임원들은 제한적인 노동 정책으로 인해 CXMT와 ChangXin Memory 등 중국 경쟁사들에 대한 국내 우위가 좁혀지고 있다고 경고했다.

“DRAM is now the only manufacturing industry in which Korea is far ahead of China. If Korea cannot maintain an unbridgeable lead in DRAM, it has no future.” This warning reflects mounting anxiety across South Korea’s semiconductor sector after Chinese DRAM manufacturer CXMT recently secured a double-digit global market share of 10%. As Beijing steadily closes the technological gap, industry officials caution that without extraordinary countermeasures, Korea risks ceding market dominance to China, repeating the trajectory previously witnessed in liquid-crystal displays (LCDs) and secondary batteries.

To preserve its competitive edge, industry leaders are advocating three immediate priorities: introducing a white-collar exemption from the 52-hour workweek limit for R&D personnel, significantly strengthening penalties for technology leaks, and accelerating proactive investments in next-generation technologies.

The most pressing demand centers on exempting researchers from the 52-hour weekly cap. While labor organizations worry that lifting the restriction could normalize excessive overtime, practitioners argue that rigid scheduling actively fractures concentration and breeds organizational disengagement. At Samsung Electronics’ Component Research Building (DSR) in Hwaseong, a semiconductor researcher explained, “When you are conducting research, there are times when you get a feeling that you could achieve more if you worked just a little longer. Those are critical moments when you need to continue working, but the 52-hour workweek has sometimes forced us to stop.” Another engineer at the facility added, “In the semiconductor industry, the results can differ dramatically depending on how deeply a single engineer concentrates on and immerses themselves in their area of responsibility. That is why the semiconductor industry thrives only in East Asian countries such as Korea, Japan, and Taiwan.” Since the policy’s implementation, staff must vacate facilities at designated quitting times, interrupting deep-focus work even during pivotal phases. Remote work remains largely unviable due to stringent confidentiality protocols.

Meanwhile, Chinese semiconductor firms are operating around the clock to narrow the gap, while critics argue Korea is inadvertently eroding its own R&D competitiveness through restrictive labor frameworks. Baek Seoin, a China tech-industry expert and professor at Hanyang University, noted, “Chinese tech companies pay higher salaries than their Korean counterparts. But that comes with an equally high workload.” An electronics industry executive echoed the sentiment, stating, “It is not fair from the standpoint of compensation equity for employees at Samsung Electronics and SK hynix, which offer performance bonuses that are high even by global standards, to work only 52 hours a week.” The pressure is already reshaping talent mobility. Semiconductor startups facing existential struggles are establishing regional branches in Vietnam and scaling local hiring. One startup executive observed that “Vietnamese employees are willing to work without being subject to the 52-hour limit, and their motivation to work is higher than that of Korean employees,” warning that the policy is simultaneously contributing to a contraction in youth employment opportunities.

Kim Kyung-ki, a professor in the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at Daegu University and incoming president of the semiconductor engineering society, clarified the industry’s stance: “Calling for the 52-hour workweek to be abolished does not mean asking people to work long hours as they did in the past. It means improving the efficiency of R&D. Like companies in Silicon Valley, the United States, employees need flexibility to work intensively and then take a month-long vacation.”

Beyond labor reforms, experts stress that penalties for semiconductor technology leaks must be drastically escalated so that potential corporate and national damages far exceed any illicit gains. Although heightened public awareness has spurred legislative updates—most notably the July amendment to the Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection of Industrial Technology, which increased the maximum fine for overseas leakage of core technologies from 1.5 billion won to 6.5 billion won and broadened the scope of prosecutable offenses—industry representatives maintain that criminal sanctions remain inadequate by international benchmarks. For comparison, a Taiwanese court recently sentenced a former employee to 10 years in prison for leaking TSMC’s 2-nanometer process technology to Japanese equipment maker Tokyo Electron. Once expanded espionage provisions under the amended Criminal Act take effect, industrial technology theft may also face espionage charges.

Proactive investment in future architectures is equally vital. One primary reason China has yet to surpass Korea in DRAM is U.S. export controls preventing ASML from shipping extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography equipment to Beijing. However, this reliance raises concerns that Chinese firms could overtake Korea by aggressively developing three-dimensional DRAM designs that bypass EUV requirements entirely. Parallel vulnerabilities exist in other domains; China’s YMTC recently closed the gap with Korean firms in hybrid bonding, a technology Seoul had initially deprioritized. Experts advise that Korean companies must fund pre-commercial innovations and pursue open innovation partnerships with universities and startups to stay ahead.

Kwon Ji-min, a professor at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), underscored the strategic weight of these emerging fields: “Technologies such as three-dimensional integration and hybrid bonding will become increasingly important in semiconductors. China, in particular, is making enormous investments in research linked to universities.” He contrasted this with domestic practices, adding, “Korean companies do not interact much with universities in order to protect their technology, but I believe universities can contribute in areas such as the early development of high-bandwidth memory (HBM), in which KAIST participated.”