Tada's business model was challenged in court, but they won. After Tada's legal victory, the National assembly under pressure from the taxi industry changed th

Tada's business model was challenged in court, but they won. After Tada's legal victory, the National assembly under pressure from the taxi industry changed the law to essentially kill the "domestic" company -- under the new law, Tada was only allowed to serve tourists and the pick-up's and drop-off's limited to airports / seaports. Sure, Uber was the first to arrive in the SK market and it immediately faced fierce pushback from the taxi union and regulators. South Korea's transport law does not allow private vehicles for commercial purposes, but it makes an exception for "car pool." Uber was declared illegal because it used private vehicles for commercial purppose and the company subsequently pulled out in 2015. Kakao launched the following year, but avoided Uber's misfortune by using registered taxis only. It appeased the taxi union, but it also meant that the company couldn't make any money and it is probably not the best example of the "shared economy" business model promoted by Uber. South Korea's "domestic" companies like Tada and Kakao tried to enter carpool business afterward, but, after no fewer than 3 taxi driver suicides in protest, two in horrific self-immolation, and the gov't intervention, Tada was forced to close their shop this year; Kaokao's capool service is limited to only 4hr/day and during rush hours on weekdays. That is not what Uber would have pursued in SK. I don't think Uber's failure in SK is good evidence to prove your case as many domestic companies, big or small, suffered similar legal troubles and fierce resistance from the taxi industry. I'd generally agree that SK doesn't have the best business climate, but I just don't see where it is necessarily hostile to foreign companies, or where "domestic" companies are favored over foreign competitors; or where all they do is to copy foreign companies similiar to China.