Why These "Tiny" Verbs Are Business-Critical Liability Bombs

In English legal and technical writing, we are obsessed with modal verbs. Think about it. The entire force of a contract hangs on the distinction between:

• Shall (A binding, inescapable obligation)
• Must (A strong, but slightly less "contractual" obligation)
• Will (A statement of future fact)
• May (Permissive; you can do it)
• Should (A recommendation; a "best effort")

We've spent centuries in common law arguing over "shall" vs. "may." A single-word swap can be worth billions.

Korean doesn't map to this system 1-to-1. It expresses these complex ideas of obligation, prohibition, permission, and causation inside the verb structure itself, often using auxiliary verbs.

When a lazy or inexperienced translator (or an AI) sees "do not," they default to the simplest form: -지 않다 (-ji anta). But that simple form might not carry the legal force of "shall not" (which would be closer to -면 안 된다 (myeon an doenda) or 금지된다 (geumjidoenda)).

Your "Limitation of Liability" clause, which says "User shall not reverse engineer the software," just got translated to "User does not reverse engineer the software."

See the problem? One is a command. The other is a statement of fact. A clever lawyer will argue, "Your honor, the contract simply observes that users don't do this; it doesn't prohibit my client from doing it. The prohibition clause is missing."

This is the game. And you're playing it whether you know it or not. Let's break down the three main culprits.

Pitfall 1: The 'Simple' Negative & Your Liability (A -지 않다 Deep Dive for Korean Legal and Technical Translation)

This is, without a doubt, the most common and dangerous error.

The Verb: -지 않다 (-ji anta) The Lazy Translation: "do not" / "is not" The Hidden Danger: It's a simple negation of fact (descriptive), not a prohibition (prescriptive).

Think of it as the difference between "The light is not green" and "You must not go." Both involve "not," but the implications are worlds apart.

Scenario A: The Legal Document (Your TOS)

Your English document says: "The user shall not use the Service for any illegal purpose." This is a clear, enforceable prohibition.

• The Bad Translation: "사용자는 불법적인 목적으로 서비스를 사용하지 않는다." (Sayongja-neun bulbeopjeogin mokjeogeuro seobiseu-reul sayonghaji anneunda.)
• What It Actually Sounds Like: "The user... just... doesn't use the service for illegal purposes." It's a simple observation. It's weak. It sounds like you're just describing your ideal user, not laying down the law.
• The Correct, Stronger Translation: "사용자는 불법적인 목적으로 서비스를 사용해서는 안 됩니다." (Sayonghaja-neun... sayonghaeseoneun an doemnida.) or "...사용을 금지합니다." (...sayongeul geumjihamnida.)
• The Business Impact: When a user does use your service for something shady, your ability to immediately terminate their account based on this clause is challenged. Their lawyer argues the clause was descriptive, not prescriptive. You're stuck in a costly fight over a verb ending.

Scenario B: The Technical Manual (Compliance)

Your English manual for a piece of medical equipment says: "The operator must not touch the sensor during calibration."

• The Bad Translation: "조작자는 보정 중에 센서를 만지지 않는다." (Jojakja-neun bojeong junge senseo-reul manjiji anneunda.)
• What It Actually Sounds Like: "The operator (as a matter of fact) does not touch the sensor." What if they do? The manual just stated a "fact" that turned out to be false.
• The Correct, Stronger Translation: "조작자는 보정 중에 센서를 만져서는 안 됩니다." (Jojakja-neun... manjeoseoneun an doemnida.)
• The Business Impact: Someone gets injured. The investigation finds the operator touched the sensor. Your company is sued. Your defense is that the manual prohibited this. The plaintiff's lawyer holds up the Korean manual and says, "Where? This line just says operators 'don't touch it,' not that they 'must not.' Your warning was insufficient." You lose.

Pitfall 2: The Causative Trap (-게 하다) and Unintended Obligations

This one is more subtle, but just as nasty. It's the "causative" verb—making, causing, allowing, or enabling something to happen.

The Verb: -게 하다 (-ge hada) The Lazy Translation: "to make (do)" / "to let (do)" / "to cause (to be)" The Hidden Danger: It's deeply ambiguous. Does it mean "force," "compel," "enable," or "permit"? Yes. It can mean all of them. Context is everything, and in legal docs, ambiguity is death.

Scenario A: The Legal Document (Privacy Policy)

Your English policy, trying to be transparent, says: "The Service allows the user to share their location."

• The Ambigious Translation: "본 서비스는 사용자가 자신의 위치를 공유하게 한다." (Bon seobiseu-neun sayongjaga jasin-ui wichireul gong-yuhage handa.)
• What It Could Mean (The Bad Reading): "This Service makes the user share their location." or "causes the user to share their location."
• The Correct, Clearer Translation: "사용자는 본 서비스를 통해 자신의 위치를 공유할 수 있습니다." (Sayongja-neun... gong-yuhal su itseumnida.) - "The user can share..."
• The Business Impact: You're facing a class-action lawsuit in Korea for privacy violations. The plaintiffs claim your app forced them to share location data, and they point to your own privacy policy as proof of intent. You meant "enable," but it was translated as "compel." This is a nightmare scenario.

Scenario B: The Technical Specification (Patent)

Your patent application for a brilliant new manufacturing process says: "The acid causes the polymer to dissolve."

• The Correct Translation (in this context): "산은 폴리머를 용해하게 한다." (San-eun polimeo-reul yonghaehage handa.) or "용해시킨다." (yonghaesikinda - a more direct causative).
• The Danger: This one is tricky. Here, -게 하다 might be correct. But what if the English was slightly different? "The lever, when pulled, enables the wheel to spin."
• The Bad Translation: "레버를 당기면 바퀴가 회전하게 한다." (...hoejeonhage handa.)
• What It Could Mean: "Pulling the lever makes the wheel spin." (a direct, guaranteed action).
• The Problem: What if your invention is just unlocking the wheel, so it can spin freely, but isn't forced to? (e.g., by another motor). You've just misstated your own invention. Your patent claim is now inaccurate. A competitor can design a system that "unlocks" but doesn't "force" and argue they don't infringe on your patent. You just narrowed your own patent scope by mistranslating "enable."

Pitfall 3: The Fuzzy Goal (-도록) and Your "Best Effort" Nightmare

This verb is the king of "weasel words." It's all about purpose, goals, and standards... and it's beautifully, dangerously non-committal.

The Verb: -도록 (-dorok) The Lazy Translation: "so that" / "in order to" / "to the point that" The Hidden Danger: It implies a goal or purpose, not a guaranteed result or a firm obligation. It's the ultimate "best efforts" clause, baked right into the grammar.

Scenario A: The Legal Document (SLA - Service Level Agreement)

Your SLA, your core promise to your B2B customers, says: "The Company shall ensure 99.9% uptime." This is a hard, measurable promise. You miss it, you pay credits.

• The Bad, Weaker Translation: "회사는 99.9%의 가동 시간을 유지하도록 노력한다." (Hoesa-neun 99.9% ui gadong sigan-eul yujihadarok noryeokhanda.) - This is a common, terrible pairing.
• What It Actually Sounds Like: "The company tries so that it maintains 99.9% uptime."
• The Problem: You've just downgraded your "shall ensure" guarantee to a "we'll try our best" goal. When an outage happens, your Korean customer is furious and demands the penalties in the SLA. Your legal team points to the Korean version and says, "We only promised to try." You've just destroyed your customer's trust to win a legal argument.
• The Correct, Stronger Translation: "회사는 99.9%의 가동 시간을 보장합니다." (Hoesa-neun... bojanghamnida.) - "The company guarantees..."

Scenario B: The Technical Manual (Safety Procedure)

Your safety manual says: "Install the guard to prevent access to the blade." This is a clear, mandatory instruction with a stated result.

• The Ambigious Translation: "칼날에 접근하지 못하도록 가드를 설치하십시오." (Kalnal-e jeopgeunhaji mothadorok gadeu-reul seolchihasipsio.)
• What It Actually Sounds Like: "Install the guard so that access to the blade is prevented."
• The Problem: This one is subtle. It's not totally wrong. But it's weaker than a direct command. It focuses on the goal (preventing access) rather than the action (installing the guard as the means). A better, more direct phrasing would be "칼날 접근을 막기 위해 가드를 설치하십시오." (Kalnal jeopgeun-eul makgi wihae...) - "In order to block access..."
• The Business Impact: In technical writing, clarity is safety. -도록 is often just a little too fuzzy. It's soft. When you need a hard, unmissable, "do-this-for-this-reason" command, -도록 can dilute the message, making it feel more like a suggestion than a life-saving instruction.

Real-World Disasters: When "Helper" Verbs Demolished Contracts

Let me tell you a quick story. (Names changed, obviously.) A mid-sized SaaS company, "SaaS-Go," was expanding into Korea. They had a standard "Limitation of Liability" clause: "In no event shall SaaS-Go be liable for any lost profits or data." A critical, standard clause.

Their translation team (a budget one) rendered this as: "SaaS-Go는 이익 또는 데이터 손실에 대해 책임을 지지 않습니다." (...chaegim-eul jiji anseumnida.)

They used -지 않다. The "statement of fact."

A major client in Korea had a catastrophic data-loss event, demonstrably caused by a bug in SaaS-Go's platform. They sued for millions in lost profits.

SaaS-Go's lawyers confidently pointed to the liability clause. The client's lawyers argued that the clause was merely descriptive (a statement that "SaaS-Go doesn't take responsibility") rather than a prescriptive waiver that the client had agreed to ("SaaS-Go shall not be held responsible").

The Korean court found the clause to be ambiguous. Because the contract was a "contract of adhesion" (non-negotiable, take-it-or-leave-it), the court construed the ambiguity against the drafter—SaaS-Go.

The "simple" negative -지 않다, instead of a stronger, legally-binding waiver, cost them a seven-figure settlement. All because of a single verb ending.

The Founder's 5-Minute Shield: A Pre-Launch Translation Checklist

You don't have time to become a linguist. But you do have time to do a "gut check" before you ship. Here is a practical checklist. Give this to your PM or Localization Manager.

Your "Is This Translation a Ticking Bomb?" Checklist

• Audit Your "Shall Nots": Do a search in your English doc for "shall not," "must not," "prohibited," and "do not." Get a list.
• Question the Negatives: Give this list to your translator. Ask this specific question: "For these prohibitions, did you use -지 않다 or a stronger form like -면 안 된다 or 금지한다?" If they say -지 않다, demand they justify it.
• Audit Your "Causatives": Search your English doc for "allow," "permit," "enable," "cause," and "make."
• Clarify Agency: Ask your translator: "For this clause, are we forcing the user, or enabling the user? Does the Korean -게 하다 capture that nuance, or should we use -할 수 있다 (can do)?"
• Hunt for "Guarantees": Search your English doc for "ensure," "guarantee," "so that," and "in order to."
• Stress-Test Your Promises: Ask your translator: "Does this phrase -도록 make our promise sound like a binding guarantee or a 'best effort' goal?" If you need a guarantee, demand 보장한다 (guarantee) or 책임진다 (take responsibility).
• The "Back-Translation" Spot Check: Pay a different translator (one who hasn't seen the original English) to translate 5-10 of your most critical Korean clauses back into English. If "User shall not..." comes back as "User does not...", you have a red flag.

Going Pro: Beyond the "Big 3" (Advanced Insights)

These three are the big offenders, but the rabbit hole goes deeper. As you mature, your localization will need to account for even more.

The Honorifics Nightmare (-(으)시-)

Korean has a complex system of honorifics (-(으)시-) to show respect. Your marketing copy must use them. But your legal contract? It's weird. A contract is a document between two equal parties, "Gap" (갑) and "Eul" (을). Using honorifics can sound obsequious, unprofessional, or worse, legally unclear. Most modern Korean contracts strip them out for clarity. Make sure your translator knows what "voice" to use for which document.

The "Must Do" vs. "Must Do For You" (-야 한다 vs. -줘야 한다)

The difference between -야 한다 (-ya handa) ("must do") and -줘야 한다 (-jweoya handa) ("must do for someone") is subtle but crucial. Does your contract say "The company must provide a report" (보고서를 제공해야 한다) or "The company must provide a report to you (as a service)" (보고서를 제공해 줘야 한다)? The second implies a service/beneficiary relationship that might have different legal implications than a simple, neutral obligation.

This is why, to be blunt, you cannot use a machine. You cannot use your intern's cousin. You are a startup/SMB, you are lean, you are smart. You save money by being efficient, not by being cheap on the one thing that can kill your company. Your legal and technical documentation is your armor. Don't buy it from a discount bin.

Frequently Asked Questions (The "Save Me From My Lawyer" Section)

Conclusion: Don't Let Grammar Be Your Downfall

The coffee's gone, and we've stared into the grammatical abyss for a while. Feeling a little terrified? Good.

You're a founder. A marketer. An operator. You're wired to manage risk. You buy insurance, you hire security auditors, you have redundancy in your tech stack. You do all this to protect against catastrophic failure.

A sloppy, ambiguous translation of your core legal and technical documents is just as dangerous as a SQL injection vulnerability. It's an unpatched backdoor into your company's liability, compliance, and intellectual property.

Your code is precise. Your cap table is precise. Your A/B tests are precise. You must demand the same precision from the language that defends your entire business in a new market. Don't let a two-letter auxiliary verb be the thing that scuttles your APAC expansion.

So here's the one, non-negotiable CTA:

Before you launch, stop. Take your translated legal and technical documents to a professional, vetted, human translation firm that specializes in Korean law and technology. Pay their invoice. It's not an "expense." It's the cheapest and best insurance policy you will ever buy.