One of the main controversies of South Korea is an economic inequality of the 99% and the 1%. This phenomenon is illustrated by the term “Chaebol” which cannot be substituted by any other language. Briefly, this term means a huge conglomerate that is run by an owner and turned over to his or her family members continuously: family business. Since Chaebol is closely associated with Korean politics, the two main parties have different perspectives on this economic system. The People Power party which is the conservative party of Korea implements a policy that supports the conglomerates, which is similar to “Trickle-down economics”, while the Democratic party tries to draw huge amounts of taxes from those who are wealthy to guarantee the welfare of all. The two main controversial policies of President Moon who are affiliated with the Democratic party are the real estate policy and job policy. The former is about limiting the ownership of real estate and imposing additional taxes on people who own more real estate than a certain amount. The purpose of this is a stabilization of the real estate market so that relatively poor people can buy real estate with a smaller amount of money. However, the negative aspects are that there is a possibility of acceleration of the economic downturn by reducing transactions, and not only who buys new real estate but also people who already own many properties have to pay more taxes. If the downturn occurs, the government would have to collect more and more taxes. The latter is about utilizing approximately 50 billion dollars for job creation and a decrease in unemployment. This can be seen as an ideal policy in relation to utilitarianism since it can increase the quality of people’s life. However, the economy of South Korea heavily relies on the profits of large conglomerates such as Samsung and Hyundai rather than that of individuals. Briefly, the pro-Chaebol policy guarantees a stable increase in the Korean economy and power in the global market, but there would be more economic inequality domestically. On the other hand, the anti-Chaebol policy can decrease the gap between rich and poor, but there would be people who are unfairly taxed in a capitalist country, and if the policy fails, the economy would be hit harder. Then, are the happiness and welfare of many more significant than the economy of the country? In other words, do large conglomerates or rich people have an obligation to sacrifice themselves for poor people? According to the OECD study held in 21 countries, more than half of the people who are asked to respond to the question, “should the government tax the rich more than they currently do in order to support the poor?”, said they agree because it is one of the ways to resolve an inequality. However, I disagree with those responders since in the free economic market, an individual property must be protected, people must compete for their welfare, and the wealth of the few and the poverty of the majority are not directly related: so, wealthy people are not responsible for the poverty.