Home > Business > Finance

Mirae Asset threatens legal action unless Brookfield returns $140M over failed IFC deal

Published: 29 Oct. 2025, 15:28 Updated: 29 Oct. 2025, 22:29

JIN MIN-JI
[email protected]

The IFC buildings in Yeouido, western Seoul [JOONGANG ILBO]

Mirae Asset Global Investments said Wednesday it will pursue legal action against Canada’s Brookfield Asset Management, including possible asset seizures, for failing to return a 200 billion won ($140 million) deposit tied to Mirae’s attempted acquisition of the International Finance Center in Seoul.

Brookfield was required to return the full deposit, along with late payment interest and arbitration costs, by Tuesday in accordance with the ruling by the Singapore International Arbitration Center earlier this month. But it refused to do so, Mirae Asset said in a statement on Wednesday.

“We express our deep regret and strong concern regarding this matter,” said Mirae Asset. “The international arbitration ruling is a final, legally binding decision acknowledged by the global community. This is not a mere contractual dispute, but a compulsory enforcement process designed to uphold the rule of law and maintain a fair market order.”

The company added that it is “prepared to initiate follow-up legal proceedings.”

Mirae Asset had deposited the down payment in 2022 to finance the purchase of the iconic property in Yeouido, western Seoul, as it was selected as the preferred bidder for the buildings that Brookfield had listed for sale.

The complex comprises three office towers, the Conrad Seoul Hotel and a shopping mall.

Mirae Asset planned to finance the deal through a real estate investment trust (REIT). But the deal fell through as Korea’s land ministry disapproved the REIT, pointing to the plan’s strong reliance on loans.

Mirae Asset argued that the deal collapsed due to circumstances beyond its control; therefore, the deposit should be fully refunded in accordance with the terms of the contract. However, Brookfield refused to return the deposit, claiming that the Korean asset manager had not made best efforts to obtain government approval, thereby violating the agreement.

BY JIN MIN-JI [[email protected]]