I’m not familiar with Korean law, but a change in any law typically isn’t so cut and dry as to obviously result in a new outcome given the same actors and the same circumstances. Obviously Epic will argue that it should be more cut and dry because it is in their interests to make that argument, but Apple also has their own rights and interests to protect and the means to do so.
I think this is more for optics in the larger anticompetitive suit Epic has against Apple going on in other markets. Korea isn't a small market, but it pales in comparison if Epic can use it as a pry bar to get back into US, EU markets on iOS.
b) Denying access to users who breach Terms of Service is a legally justified position for companies to take.
Companies with much larger market share e.g. Facebook, Google do this every day.
If the law does not permit banning an app for allowing third party processing then I would expect Epic to have a good case.
And from Apple's perspective, Epic Games has breached their contract in the US so not sure why they would allow them back in the store until that issue is resolved.
>>tied selling
>https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tiedselling.asp
>>Tied selling may be used as a means of price discrimination in that it may help banks (or other companies) consolidate a customer's business within a single provider.