KF Korea Fund Inc

ITEM 7. DISCLOSURE OF PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES

The Investment Adviser is authorized to vote proxies of the Fund’s portfolio securities. See the Investment Adviser’s proxy voting policies and procedures in the JPMAM Global Proxy Voting Guidelines (Attached to this Form N-CSR as exhibit 13(a)(4).

Corporate Governance Policy & Voting Guidelines

I. Corporate Governance Principles

J.P. Morgan Asset Management (JPMAM) is committed to meeting client objectives by delivering the strongest possible risk-adjusted returns. We believe that a key contributor to this is a thorough understanding of the corporate governance practices of the companies in which we invest. We expect all our investee companies to demonstrate the highest standards of governance in the management of their businesses, as far as is reasonably practicable.

We have set out in this document some information underpinning the principles behind our proxy voting guidelines. These principles are based on the OECD’s Principles of Corporate Governance, as well as on the governance codes of the jurisdictions in which our investee companies are domiciled. But regardless of location or jurisdiction, we believe companies should abide by the following:

Board and Director Responsibilities

Companies should be headed by a strong and effective board to drive the long term success of the company. It should contain an appropriate combination of executive and non-executive directors, able to make decisions on behalf of all shareholders, separate from the individual interests of management and / or controlling shareholders. The board should set strategic objectives, oversee operational performance and establish the company’s long term values and standards. At the same time it should be responsible for establishing prudent and effective risk controls to protect the company’s assets and safeguard shareholder interests. Finally, the board should be responsible for selecting the key executives tasked with developing and executing corporate strategy, and for ensuring that executive remuneration is aligned with the longer term interests of shareholders. All directors should act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders, consistent with their statutory and fiduciary obligations.

Shareholder Rights

Shareholders should have the opportunity to participate in, and vote at, general meetings, and should be furnished with sufficient information on a timely basis to make informed voting decisions. Arrangements that enable certain shareholders to obtain a disproportionate degree of control relative to their equity ownership should be disclosed upfront, and anti-takeover devices should not be used to shield management and the board from ongoing accountability.

Equitable Treatment

All shareholders of the same class should be treated equally, and all shares within the same class should carry the same rights. Impediments to cross border voting should be eliminated, and companies should not make it difficult or expensive for shareholders to cast their votes. Minority shareholders should be protected from unfair and / or abusive actions by controlling shareholders.

Stakeholders’ Rights Stakeholders, including individual employees and their representative bodies, should be able to communicate their concerns about illegal or unethical practices to the board, and their rights should not be compromised for doing so. Where stakeholders participate in the corporate governance process, they should have access to relevant and timely information for that participation to be effective.

Sustainability

All companies should conduct themselves in a socially responsible way. Non-financial environmental and social issues have the potential to seriously impair the value of businesses, as well as create significant reputational damage. We expect the companies in which we invest, to behave in an ethical and responsible manner, observing their wider societal obligations to their communities and to the environment. Since transparency in how a business manages ESG risks is increasingly part of the overall value proposition, we believe that companies will only thrive in the longer term if they put sustainability at the heart of their governance processes.

Disclosure and Transparency

Companies should ensure that accurate information on all matters of relevance is publicly disclosed, to allow shareholders to make an informed and balanced assessment of a company’s performance and its prospects. This should include its operating performance, its financial condition, and its governance practices and policies. Information about board members, including their qualifications, other company directorships and their level of independence should be disclosed, so that shareholders can make an informed assessment of their suitability in their proxy voting decisions.

Our assessment of corporate governance practice is based on the regulations and codes of best practice in the jurisdictions in which our investee companies are domiciled. Any company complying with these codes, and with the general principles stated above, should usually expect to receive our support. If a company chooses to deviate from the provisions of the governance codes specific to its jurisdiction, we will give its explanation due consideration and take this into account in our proxy voting, based on our assessment of its governance standards.

II. Policy and Procedures

Proxy Voting

JPMAM manages the voting rights of the shares entrusted to us, as we would manage any asset, although it should be noted that not all clients delegate voting authority to us; some retain voting decisions for themselves or delegate voting to a third party. But where authorized to do so, it is the policy of JPMAM to vote shares held in client portfolios in a prudent and diligent manner, based on our reasonable judgment of what is in the best interests of clients.

JPMAM treats every proxy on a case-by-case basis, voting for or against each resolution, or actively withholding our vote as appropriate. Our concern at all times is the best economic interests of our clients. These Guidelines are therefore an indication of JPMAM’s normal voting policy, since our investment professionals always have the discretion to override these guidelines should individual circumstances dictate.

To assist us in the filing of proxies, JPMAM retains the services of Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS), a proxy voting services advisor. As part of this service, ISS makes recommendations on each board resolution requiring a shareholder vote. While we take note of these recommendations, we are not obliged to follow them if we have a contrary view; our portfolio managers vote according to our own governance principles and guidelines, and our own research insights. Records of our voting activities are maintained by our Asset Servicing group, and any deviation from our stated policies is documented, to ensure all proxies are exercised appropriately.

So far as is practicable, we vote at all meetings called by companies in which we are invested. However, certain markets may require that shares being tendered for voting are temporarily immobilized from trading until after the shareholder meeting has taken place. Other markets may require a local representative to be hired, under a Power-of-Attorney, to attend the meeting and vote on our behalf; this can incur considerable additional cost to clients. Finally, it may not always be possible to obtain sufficient information to make an informed decision in good time to vote, or there may be specific circumstances where voting can preclude participating in certain types of corporate actions. In these instances, it may sometimes be in clients’ best interests to intentionally refrain from voting. But in all other circumstances we endeavor to safeguard clients’ interests.

We note that it can be difficult for smaller companies in emerging economies to apply the same governance standards, as it is for companies operating in developed economies and markets. We will look at any governance related issues of such companies on a case-by-case basis and take their context into account before arriving at our voting decision. Nevertheless, we encourage all companies to apply the highest standards of governance wherever possible, in the belief that strong standards of governance will ultimately translate into higher shareholder returns.

Proxy Committee

The responsibility for JPMAM’s voting policy for portfolios managed in the Asia Pacific region (outside Japan) lies with the Asia ex-Japan Proxy Committee. The Committee’s role is to set JPMAM’s corporate governance policy and practices in respect of investee companies, and to oversee the proxy voting process. The Committee is composed of senior investors and corporate governance professionals, supported by specialists from Legal, Compliance, Risk and other relevant groups. The Committee meets quarterly and reports into the AM APAC Business Control Committee as well as the Global Head of Sustainable Investing. The Global Head of Sustainable Investing is a member of each regional committee and, working with the regional Proxy Administrators, is charged with overall responsibility for JPMAM’s approach to governance issues including proxy voting worldwide and coordinating regional proxy voting guidelines and procedures in accordance with applicable regulations and best practices.

Stewardship and Engagement

As long term owners, we regard regular, systematic and direct contact with senior company management as essential in helping us discharge our stewardship responsibilities. We therefore engage actively with our investee companies, to keep abreast of strategic, operating and financial developments in order to ensure that our clients’ interests are represented and protected. Where appropriate, our stewardship specialists may convene meetings with company representatives at the boardroom level to discuss issues of particular concern.

JPMAM endorses the stewardship principles promoted by different regulators and industry bodies in the region. We believe our existing stewardship activities meet the standards required under these principles. Our statements of commitment can be viewed from our website.

Conflicts of interest

JPMAM is part of the JP Morgan Chase group (JPMC), which provides a range of banking and investment services. Conflicts of interest arise from time to time in the normal course of business, both within and between, JPMC affiliates. However, procedures are in place to make sure these conflicts can be managed and resolved. Typical conflicts may include instances where a JPMC affiliate is involved in a transaction at an investee company, is providing banking or other services for that company, or where JPMC connected personnel may sit on a company’s board.

In order to maintain the integrity and independence of our voting decisions, businesses within the JPMC group have established formal barriers designed to restrict the flow of information between affiliated entities. This includes information from JPMC’s securities, investment banking and custody divisions to JPMAM’s investment professionals. A formal policy with respect to Conflicts of interest Disclosure has been established to manage such conflicts, and is available for download from our website.

Where a material conflict of interest is identified with respect to proxy voting, JPMAM may contact individual clients to approve any voting decision, may call upon independent third parties (eg, our proxy voting service advisor) to make the voting decision on our behalf, or may elect not to exercise the proxy. A record of all such decisions is kept by the Asset Services group and is reviewed by the relevant Proxy Committee at committee meetings. This record is available to clients upon request.

III. Policy Voting Guidelines

1. Report and Accounts

Annual Report

Company reports and accounts should be detailed and transparent, and should be submitted to shareholders for approval. They should meet accepted reporting standards, such as those prescribed by of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), and should meet with the spirit as well as the letter of those reporting standards. They should be fair, balanced and understandable, and the narrative sections covering corporate strategy, operating activities and risk management should accurately detail the company’s position, performance and prospects.

The annual report should include a statement of compliance with the relevant codes of best practice in the jurisdictions where they exist, together with detailed explanations regarding any instances of non- compliance.

Legal disclosure varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. If, in our opinion, a company’s standards of disclosure (whilst meeting minimum legal requirements) are insufficient, we will inform company management of our concerns. Depending on the circumstances, we will either abstain from voting, or vote against the relevant resolution put to shareholders. Similar considerations, relating to the use of inappropriate or overly aggressive accounting methods, also apply.

Remuneration Report

Establishing an effective remuneration policy for senior executives is a key consideration at board level. The purpose of remuneration is to attract, retain and reward competent executives who can drive the long term growth of the company; ensuring that remuneration is appropriate for the role assigned should therefore be a particular concern of shareholders. Ideally a company’s remuneration policy, as it relates to senior management, should be presented to shareholders as a separate voting item. However we recognize that practices differ between jurisdictions, and a shareholder vote on this is not yet standard in Asia.

At the same time, we would expect companies to disclose the main components of remuneration for key directors and executives. Ideally this should take into consideration: the amounts paid and the mix between short term and long term awards, the performance criteria used to benchmark awards and whether these are capped or uncapped, and the use made of any discretionary authority by boards or remuneration committees to adjust pay outcomes. In the event that remuneration awards fall outside our guidelines (see Remuneration section below), we will endeavor to seek an explanation from the company, and may vote against remuneration reports and/or members of the remuneration committees, if satisfactory explanations are not forthcoming.

Where shareholders are able to exercise a binding vote on remuneration policies, we believe that such policies should stand the test of time. But in the event that awards are amended or revised, any material changes should be put to shareholders for approval. We encourage companies to provide information on the ratio of CEO pay to median employee pay, and to explain the reasons for changes to the ratio as it unfolds year by year. Companies should also have regard to gender pay gaps and to indicate to shareholders how this issue is being addressed. Finally in its reporting to shareholders, remuneration committees and / or boards should provide clear and concise reports that are effective at communicating how executive pay is linked to the delivery of the company’s strategy over the forecast time horizon, and how it is aligned to shareholder interests.

2. Dividends

Practice differs by jurisdiction as to whether companies are required to submit dividend resolutions for approval at shareholder meetings. In some jurisdictions, dividends can be declared by board resolution alone. However, in those jurisdictions where shareholder approval is mandated, we may vote against such proposals if we deem the payout ratio to be too low, particularly if cash is being hoarded with little strategic intent. Conversely, if we consider a proposed dividend to be too high in relation to a company’s underlying earnings capability, we may also vote against the resolution, if we believe this could jeopardize the company’s long term prospects and solvency.

3. Board and Directors

Board Oversight Responsibilities

To ensure sustainable success in the long-term, companies should be controlled by a strong and effective board, which is accountable to shareholders and considers the interests of the various stakeholders they depend on. The board should comprise competent individuals with the necessary skills, background and experience to provide objective oversight of management. All directors should submit themselves for re-election on a regular basis.

We believe that one of the key functions of a board is to set a company’s values and standards, and establish a culture that is geared to the long term success of the enterprise and be responsive to the wider stakeholders. A healthy culture serves as unifying force for the organization, and helps align the stated purpose and core values of the entity with the strategy and business model pursued. Conversely, a dysfunctional culture has the potential to undermine a business and create significant risk for shareholders.

The board should be responsible for defining the values and behaviors that will help the company excel and for ensuring that there is alignment between its purpose, core values, strategic direction and operating activities. The standards of behavior set by the board should resonate across the entire organization. We believe that there are strong links between high standards of governance, a healthy corporate culture, and superior shareholder returns.

Board Independence

We believe that a strong independent board is essential to the effective running of a company. The number of the independent non-executive directors (INEDs) on a board should be sufficient so that their views carry weight in the board’s decision-making. INEDs should be willing and able to challenge the views of the CEO and other directors to ensure that alternative viewpoints are heard. The required number of independent directors on a board is often set by governance codes, but notwithstanding this, we are strongly of the view that the majority of members should be independent to encourage the broadest diversity of opinion and representation of views.

At a minimum, we would expect that INEDs should make up at least one third of all company boards. We will seek for greater independent representation than this where:

Where we believe there to be an insufficient number of INEDs, we will vote against the re-election of some, or all directors at shareholder meetings, unless an acceptable explanation is provided.

In order to help assess their individual contributions to the company, the time spent on company business by each non-executive director should be disclosed to shareholders, as well as their attendance records at board and committee meetings. Boards should also create and maintain a formal succession plan, to ensure the orderly refreshment of board membership, and to minimize over-dependence on a narrow cohort of individuals.

Chairman

Boards should be headed by an effective Chairman, who, ideally, is independent on appointment. There should be a clear division of responsibilities at the head of a company, such that no one individual has unfettered powers of decision-making. JPMAM believes that the roles of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer should be separate to provide for a separation of responsibilities. But in instances where the two roles are combined, a Lead Independent Director should be identified to provide oversight over executive decisions, and to maintain an alternative channel of communication between the board and its shareholders.

In instances where a company does not have an independent Chairman or a designated Lead Director, and where a satisfactory explanation has not been provided, we will vote against the re-election of the Chairman, and other directors, at shareholder meetings.

Board Size

Boards should be appropriate to the size and complexity of the company. JPMAM will exercise its voting powers in favor of reducing excessively large boards wherever possible. Unless the size and complexity of the company demands it, boards with more than 15 directors are usually too large, whereas boards with less than five directors are too small to provide sufficient levels of independent representation on key governance committees. A board should be large enough to manage required governance processes, and yet still sufficiently compact to promote open dialogue between directors.

Board Diversity

We are committed to supporting inclusive organizations where everyone, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, disability or ethnic and religious background, can succeed on merit.

At the board level, we believe that boards which reflect a wide range of perspectives and opinion helps to enhance shareholder value. Diverse boardrooms help companies make better strategic decisions and assist in navigating increasingly complex issues, including geopolitical risks, regulatory changes and disruptive technologies. Recruiting individuals with the necessary skills, varied experiences and diverse backgrounds should be a fundamental part of strengthening a business.

We expect boards to have a strategy to improve female representation in particular, and we will utilize our voting power to bring about change where companies are lagging in this respect. As a matter of principle we expect our investee companies to be committed to diversity and inclusiveness in all aspects of their businesses.

Board Committees

To strengthen the governance process, boards should delegate key oversight functions, such as responsibility for Audit, Nomination and Remuneration issues, to separate committees. The Chairman and members of any Committee should be clearly identified in the Annual Report. Any Committee should have the authority to engage independent advisers where appropriate at the company’s expense.

Audit Committees should consist solely of non-executive directors, who are independent of management. A demonstrably independent audit is essential for investor confidence. The Committee should include at least one person with an appropriate financial background, but all committee members should undergo appropriate training that provides for, and maintains, a reasonable level of financial literacy. The terms of reference of the Audit Committee should include the power to determine the scope of the audit process, to review the effectiveness of the external auditor, and to access any information arising from the internal audit process. Formal arrangements should be in place for the Committee to hold regular meetings with external auditors, without executive or staff involvement, and it should have the right of unrestricted access to all necessary company information to enable it to discharge its responsibilities.

Nomination Committees should be majority-independent and have an independent chair. The responsibilities of the Committee should include: assessing the skills and competencies of directors to ensure that the board has an appropriate range of expertise; managing the process for evaluating the performance of the board, its committees and directors, and reporting on this process to shareholders in the Annual Report; and maintaining formal and transparent arrangements for succession planning at the board and senior management level.

Remuneration Committees should be majority-independent and have an independent chair. The responsibilities of the Committee should include: reviewing and recommending policies relating to remuneration, retention and termination of senior executives; ensuring that, through these policies, executives are properly motivated to drive the long term success of the company, and that incentives are appropriately aligned; and overseeing the remuneration framework for non-executive directors. The Remuneration Committee should be ready to engage with and receive feedback from relevant stakeholders. The remuneration report should be the responsibility of the Remuneration Committee.

Boards of banks, insurance companies, and other large or complex companies, should consider establishing a Risk Committee to provide independent oversight and advice to the board on the risk management strategy of the company. As with other committees, this Committee should give a summary of its activities in the Annual Report.

Director Independence and Tenure

A director will generally be deemed to be independent if he or she has no significant financial, familial or other ties with the company which might pose a conflict of interest. A non-executive director who has served more than three terms (or nine years) in the same capacity is no longer, normally, deemed to be independent. Directors staying on beyond this term would require the fullest explanation to shareholders.

At the same time, it is essential that a company should attract and retain strong, experienced and knowledgeable board members able to contribute to its direction and success. To allow for periodic board refreshment, we would encourage companies to articulate their approach on term limits and retirement age, and insofar as exceptions arise, to explain why this should be warranted given the board’s composition and the individual director’s contribution.

In determining our vote, we will always consider independence and tenure issues on a case-by-case basis, taking into account any exceptional individual circumstances.

Multiple Directorships

To carry out their responsibilities effectively, non-executive directors must be able to commit an appropriate amount of time to board matters. In order to be able to devote sufficient time to his or her duties, we would not normally expect a non-executive director to hold more than three significant directorships at any one time. However, in the case of related group companies, we believe it is reasonable for an individual to hold up to six directorships, as long as this does not impact his/her ability to discharge his/her duties. In our view, it is the responsibility of the Chairman to ensure that all directors are participating actively, and are contributing proportionately to the work-load of the board.

For executive directors, only one additional non-executive post would normally be considered appropriate without further explanation.

Meeting Attendance

Directors should ensure they attend all board meetings and relevant committee meetings within their remit. We will consider voting against director re-election proposals for individuals with poor attendance records, unless compelling reasons for absence are disclosed.

Directors’ Liability

In certain markets, shareholders may be asked to give boards a blanket discharge from responsibility for all decisions made during the previous financial year. Depending on the jurisdiction, this resolution may or may not be legally binding, and may not release the board from its legal responsibility.

JPMAM will usually vote against discharging the board from responsibility in cases of pending litigation, or if there is evidence of wrongdoing, for which the board must be held accountable.

Companies may arrange Directors and Officers (“D&O”) liability insurance to indemnify executives in certain circumstances, such as class action lawsuits and other litigation. JPMAM generally supports such proposals, although we do not approve of arrangements where directors are given 100% indemnification, as this could absolve them of responsibility for their actions and encourage them to act recklessly. Such arrangements should not extend to third parties, such as auditors.

4. Remuneration

Key Principles

The key purpose of remuneration is to attract, retain and reward executives who are fundamental to the long term success of the company. Executive remuneration is, and will, remain a contentious area, particularly the overall quantum of remuneration. Policy in this area cannot easily be prescribed by any one code or formula to cater for all circumstances and it must depend on responsible and well- informed judgments on the part of Remuneration

Committees. Any remuneration policy should be clear, transparent, simple to understand for both executives and investors, and fully disclosed to shareholders. At a senior executive level, remuneration should contain both a fixed element—set by reference to the external market—and a variable element, which fully aligns the executive with shareholder interests, and where superior awards can only be achieved by achieving superior performance against well-defined metrics.

Due consideration should be given to the effective management of risk within the business. This should be reflected in remuneration arrangements, which incentivize appropriate behavior and discourage excessive risk taking. Pay should be aligned to the long term success of the business and the returns achieved by shareholders, and due consideration should be given to claw-back arrangements, to avoid payment for failure. Remuneration committees should use the discretion afforded to them by shareholders to ensure that pay awards properly reflect the business performance achieved.

We believe firmly that executive directors should be encouraged to hold meaningful amounts of company stock throughout the duration of their board tenure. However, transaction bonuses, one-off retention awards, or other retrospective ex-gratia payments, should not be made, and we will vote against such awards when proposed at shareholder meetings. Recruitment awards for incoming executives should be limited to the value of awards forgone, and be granted on equivalent terms.

We will generally vote against shareholder proposals to restrict arbitrarily the compensation of executives or other employees. We feel that the specific amounts and types of employee compensation are within the ordinary remit of the board. At the same time, the remuneration of executive directors should be determined by independent remuneration committees and fully disclosed to shareholders. We would expect that stock option plans or long-term incentive plans should meet our compensation guidelines (see below).

Fixed Compensation

Executives are entitled to a basic salary set by reference to the external market, and in particular benchmarked against the company’s immediate peers. While acknowledging that salary often forms the basis for variable compensation arrangements, we believe annual increases in salary should be limited, and generally be in line with the wider workforce of the company. Substantial increases in salary, for example, where an executive has been promoted, should be fully justified to shareholders. We do not approve of large increases in fixed salary as a retention mechanism.

Variable Compensation

We generally prefer any variable compensation arrangement to have both a short-term and long-term component. Annual bonuses are now a common feature of compensation packages, and we recommend that bonuses be benchmarked against the sector in which the company operates. Whilst we recognize that annual bonus targets are often commercially sensitive, we expect a high degree of disclosure on performance metrics (pre-award) and performance against those metrics (post-award). Payment of bonuses for executives should take the form of cash and deferred shares. Claw-back arrangements should be a feature of any variable compensation scheme.

For the long-term component of variable compensation schemes, share-based Long-Term Incentive Plans (LTIPs) and Share Option Schemes (SOSs) should be designed to give executives an incentive to perform at the highest levels; grants under such schemes should be subject to appropriate performance criteria, which reflect the company’s long-term strategy and objectives over an appropriate time horizon. There should be no award for below-median performance, and awards for at- median performance should be modest at best. Beneficiaries should be encouraged to retain any resultant shares for the duration of their employment.

We will generally vote against the re-setting of performance conditions on existing awards, the cancellation and re-issue, re-testing or re-pricing of underwater awards, and the backdating of awards or discounted awards.

All incentive plans should be clearly explained and disclosed to shareholders, and, ideally, put to a shareholder vote for approval. Furthermore, each director’s awards, awarded or vested, should be detailed, including the term, performance conditions, exercise prices (if any), and the market price of the shares at the date of exercise. Best practice requires that share options be expensed fully, so that shareholders can assess their true cost to the company. The assumptions and methodology behind the expensing calculation should also be explained to shareholders.

To ensure that incentive plans operate in a way that benefits both employees and shareholders, we expect a limit on the level of dilution that can occur, and an upper performance cap or appropriate tapering arrangements for individual awards.

We will vote in favor of well-structured compensation schemes with keen incentives and clear and specific performance criteria, which are challenging in nature and fully disclosed to shareholders. We will vote against remuneration awards which we deem to be excessive, or performance criteria which are undemanding. We would expect remuneration committees to explain why criteria used are considered to be challenging, and how they align the interests of recipients with the long term interests of shareholders.

Pension Arrangements

Pension arrangements should be transparent and cost-neutral to shareholders. JPMAM believes it is inappropriate for executives to participate in pension arrangements, which are materially different to those of employees (such as continuing to participate in a final salary arrangement, when employees have been transferred to a defined contribution scheme). One-off payments into an individual director’s pension scheme, changes to pension entitlements, and waivers concerning early retirement provisions should be fully disclosed and justified to shareholders.

Non-Executive Director Remuneration

The role of the non-executive director is to monitor the strategy, performance and remuneration of executives and to protect the interests of shareholders. Non-executive directors should receive sufficient remuneration to attract and retain suitably qualified individuals and encourage them to undertake their role diligently.

JPMAM believes that non-executive directors should be paid, at least in part, in shares of the company wherever possible, in order to align their interests with the interests of shareholders. Performance criteria, however, should never be attached. Non-executive directors should not be awarded share options or performance based share awards. Neither should they receive retrospective ex-gratia payments at the termination of their service on the board. In the event that such remuneration schemes or payments are proposed, we will vote against these proposals.

5. Auditors

Auditor Independence

Auditors must provide an independent and objective check on the way in which the financial statements have been prepared and presented. The appointment of a company’s auditor should be reviewed and approved by shareholders on an annual basis. We will vote against the appointment or re-appointment of auditors who are not perceived as independent, or where there has been an unambiguous audit failure. The length of time that both the audit company and the audit partner have served in their capacity may be a factor in determining independence.

Auditor Rotation

In order to safeguard the independence of the audit, companies should rotate their designated auditor over time. We believe that companies should put their external audit contract out to tender at least every ten years.

Auditor Remuneration

We expect companies to make a detailed disclosure on auditor remuneration. Companies should be encouraged to distinguish clearly between audit and non-audit fees. Audit Committees should keep under review the non-audit fees paid to the auditor, both in relation to the size of the total audit fee and in relation to the company’s total expenditure on consultancy services.

Full details of all non-audit work should be disclosed. If there is a lack of explanation over the nature of non-audit services, or if there is reason to believe that the nature of these services could impair the independence of the audit, we will oppose the re-appointment of the auditor.

If the quantum of non-audit fees consistently exceed audit fees, and if no explanation is given to shareholders, we will vote against the auditor remuneration resolution.

Auditor Indemnification

We are opposed to the use of shareholders’ funds to indemnify auditors.

6. Capital Management

Issue of Equity

Company law requires that shareholder approvals be obtained to increase the share capital of a company; at the same time, shareholders need to be aware of the expected levels of dilution resulting from new equity issuance. We will generally vote in favor of equity increases which enhance a company’s long term prospects, but we will vote against issuance terms that we consider excessively dilutive.

We believe strongly that any new issue of equity should first be offered to existing shareholders before being made available more broadly. Pre-emption rights are a fundamental right of ownership and we will generally vote against any attempts to deprive shareholders of these rights, except under very limited terms. At the same time, companies should have the ability to issue additional equity to provide flexibility in their financing arrangements. In many jurisdictions, companies routinely ask shareholders for authority to issue new equity up to a certain percentage of issued capital, and up to a maximum discount to prevailing market prices (the so-called “general mandate”).

As shareholders, we recognize the flexibility that the general mandate gives companies, and we wish to be supportive of such proposals. However, we also recognize that these mandates can be open to abuse, particularly if this results in excessively dilutive issuance. In particular, we believe the maximum number of additional shares represented by these proposals should be limited to 10% of existing equity capital, and the maximum discount of such issues to prevailing prices should similarly be limited to 10%.

We note that the listing rules in some jurisdictions permit issuance on considerably more relaxed terms than implied by these limits. In Hong Kong, for example, companies can seek approval to issue up to 20% of issued equity, at up to a 20% discount to prevailing market prices. We believe strongly that the dilution risk implied by these limits is excessive, and we tend to vote against such requests, unless a strong explanation has been provided justifying such terms.

When seeking shareholder approval for a general mandate, we would urge a company to provide the following details:

JPMAM will vote against equity issues, which allows the company to adopt “poison pill” takeover defense tactics, or where the increase in authorized capital excessively dilutes existing shareholder interests.

Debt Issuance

JPMAM will generally vote in favor of debt issuance proposals, which we believe will enhance a company’s long-term prospects. At the same time, we will vote against any uncapped or poorly-defined increase in bank borrowing powers or borrowing limits, as well as debt issuance which could result in an unacceptable degree of financial leverage assumed. We will also vote against proposals to increase borrowings, expressly as part of a takeover defense.

Share Repurchase Programs

JPMAM will generally vote in favor of share repurchase or buy-back programs where we believe the repurchase is in the best interests of shareholders. At the same time, we will vote against abusive repurchase schemes, or when shareholders’ interests could be better served by deployment of the cash for alternative uses. When purchased, we prefer that such shares are cancelled immediately, rather than taken into Treasury for re-issuance at a later date.

7. Mergers, Acquisitions and Related Party Transactions

Mergers and acquisitions are always considered on a case-by-case basis, and votes are determined exclusively by the best interests of our clients. In exceptional circumstances, we may split our vote and vote differently for individual clients depending on unique client circumstances. JPMAM may also split its vote between different clients for technical reasons, such as cross-border mergers, where certain clients may not be able to hold the resultant security in portfolios. JPMAM will vote in favor of mergers/acquisitions where the proposed acquisition price represents fair value for shareholders, where shareholders cannot realize greater value through other means, and where all shareholders receive equal treatment under the merger/acquisition terms. Where the transaction involves related parties – see below – we would expect the board to establish a committee of independent directors to review the transaction and report separately to shareholders. There should be a clear value enhancing rationale for the proposed transaction.

Related Party Transactions

Related party transactions (RPTs) are common in a number of Asia Pacific jurisdictions. These are transactions between a company and its related parties, and generally come in two forms: a) one-off transactions, typically asset purchases or disposals, and b), recurring transactions occurring during the ordinary course of business, usually in the form of the ongoing sale and purchase of goods and services.

According to the materiality and nature of the transaction, the RPT may need to be disclosed and submitted to a shareholder meeting for approval. Any shareholder who has a material interest in the transaction should abstain from voting on the resolution. If a RPT requires shareholder approval, the company should establish a board committee comprising solely of independent directors, and appoint an independent advisor to prepare a recommendation to minority shareholders.

We will assess one-off transactions on a case by case basis. Where we are convinced by the strategic rationale and the fairness of the transaction terms, we will vote in favor. At the same time, we would expect the independent directors to disclose how they have made their recommendation to minority shareholders, so that shareholders can make an informed decision on this transaction.

For recurring transactions, we would expect that details are disclosed in the Annual Report, and that they be subject to shareholders’ approval on a periodic basis. We would expect all such transactions to have been conducted on an arms-length basis, on normal commercial terms.

8. Voting Rights

Voting rights are the defining feature of equity ownership, and effective corporate governance depends on the willingness and ability of shareholders to exercise their votes. As a matter of principle, we believe that one share should equal one vote, and we are opposed to mechanisms that skew voting rights in favor of founder shareholders or other privileged groups. Unfortunately, the “one share, one vote” principle has been eroded in recent years, as regulators have permitted the listing of companies with weighted voting rights and other dual class features. This has reduced the ability of minority shareholders in these companies to use their voting power to hold their managements or controlling shareholders fully to account, in view of the lack of proportionality that unequal voting structures confer.

To provide protection for minority investors, we believe that companies with dual class structures should review these control features on a regular basis and seek periodic shareholder approvals. This should give those shareholders not enjoying such voting privileges the opportunity to affirm these structures, or to establish mechanisms, such as sunset clauses, which can phase out these unequal advantages after a prescribed period of time.

Independent directors, unaffiliated to controlling shareholders, should recognize their obligation to represent all shareholders equally, irrespective of the skew in voting rights. We will vote against the re-election of independent directors if valid concerns arise that the interests of minority shareholders are being compromised by the actions of controlling shareholders, enjoying disproportionate voting rights.

Elsewhere, while certain fundamental changes to a company’s business, Articles of Association, or share capital should require a supermajority vote, voting on routine business should require a simple majority only (51%). We will generally oppose amendments that require inappropriate supermajority votes, or use supermajority requirements as a tool to entrench existing managements.

9. Environmental and Social Issues

Key Principles

Companies should conduct their business in a manner which recognizes their responsibilities to employees and other stakeholders, as well as to the environment and broader society. We expect investee companies to establish an Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Committee or similar body with responsibility for these issues. This committee should have direct access to the board and, ideally should have a designated main board director responsible for its functioning. We expect companies to publish a separate ESG Report, or to provide an ESG statement within their Annual Report, or on their website.

Where environmental or social issues are the subject of a proxy vote, we will consider these on a case-by-case basis. At the same time, we note that shareholder proposals can often be used by activist groups to target companies as a means of promoting single-issue agendas. In these instances, it is important to differentiate between constructive proposals designed to bring about genuine environmental or social improvement, and proposals intended to limit management power, which may adversely impact shareholder returns.

We will generally support constructive resolutions, intended to bring about positive improvement, or to enhance CSR disclosures. We encourage reporting that is material, and informative and does not place the company at a competitive disadvantage. Disclosure should provide meaningful information that enables shareholders to evaluate the impact of the company’s ESG policies and practices.

Climate Risk

The evidence is clear that rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, is resulting in accelerated climate change, and that this poses significant future risk for the global economy. As part of our investment analysis, we consider a variety of risks, including environmental risks, and the impact this could have on future portfolio returns. Companies that fail to manage these risks appropriately could subject shareholders to significant value erosion.

Corporate disclosures on climate related risks and other environmental issues have improved significantly in recent years, but this still falls short of allowing investors to fully estimate the impact of these risks. Given the focus placed on this by regulators, we believe public companies will be compelled to consider these issues more strategically and to report more fully on climate risks to shareholders and other stakeholders. In anticipation of this, we encourage companies to strengthen their climate risk reporting disclosures still further, and to consider forward-looking assessments of such risks in their risk analysis and reporting.

10. Shareholder Resolutions

In a number of jurisdictions, shareholders have the right to submit proposals at shareholder meetings, providing eligibility and other requirements have been met. Such proposals can be wide ranging, and may include: governance reforms, capital management issues, and disclosures surrounding environmental and social risks.

When assessing shareholder proposals, we review each resolution on its merits. Our sole criteria of support is: does this proposal enhance shareholder rights; and is this proposal in the long term interests of all shareholders? Where we are convinced the proposal meets these objective, it will receive our vote in support. However, we will not support proposals which are frivolous or supportive of a narrow activist agenda; nor will we support those which are unduly constraining on managements, or are already in managements’ remit.

Where a proposal is focused on an issue that needs to be addressed, we would expect the board and management to demonstrate that company will comply with the resolution within a reasonable time-frame. But where the company fails to respond sufficiently or with the appropriate sense of urgency, we may vote against the re-election of one or more directors at subsequent meetings.

11. Other Corporate Governance Matters

Amendments to Articles of Association

These proposals can vary from routine changes to reflect regulatory change to significant changes that can substantially alter the governance of a company. We will review these proposals on a case by case basis, and will support those proposals that we believe are in the best interests of shareholders.

Anti-takeover Devices

Poison pills, and other anti-takeover devices, are arrangements designed to defend against hostile takeover. Typically, they give shareholders of a target company or a friendly third party, the right to purchase shares at a substantial discount to market value, or shares with special conversion rights in the event of a pre-defined “triggering event” (such as an outsider’s acquisition of a certain percentage of company stock). Companies may be able to adopt poison pills without shareholder approval, depending on the jurisdiction concerned.

We are fundamentally opposed to any artificial barrier to the efficient functioning of markets. The market for corporate control should, ultimately, be for all shareholders to decide. We find no clear evidence that poison pills enhance shareholder value. Rather, they tend to be used as tools to entrench existing management.

We will generally vote against anti-takeover devices and support proposals aimed at revoking such plans. Where anti-takeover devices exist, they should be fully disclosed to shareholders and shareholders should be given the opportunity to review them periodically.

Composite Resolutions

Agenda items at shareholder meetings should be presented so that they can be voted upon clearly, distinctly and unambiguously. We normally oppose deliberately vague, composite or “bundled” resolutions, depending on the context and local market practice. Likewise we will generally vote against “any other business” resolutions, where the exact nature of the proposal has not been presented to shareholders in advance.

Any amendments to a company’s Articles of Association, for example, should be presented to shareholders in such a way that they can be voted on independently. Shareholders should similarly be able to vote on the election of directors individually, rather than as part of bundled slates.

Charitable Donations

Charitable donations are generally acceptable, provided they are within reasonable limits and fully disclosed to shareholders.

Political Donations

We do not support the use of shareholder funds for political purposes

ITEM 8. PORTFOLIO MANAGERS OF CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES

(a) (1)

As of January 1, 2021, the following individuals have primary responsibility for the day-to-day management of The Korea Fund, Inc. (the “Fund”):

John Cho, executive director, is a country specialist for Korean equities within the Emerging Markets and Asia Pacific (EMAP) Equities team based in Hong Kong. He joined the firm in 2007 and transferred to Hong Kong from Seoul to take up his current role in 2011. Prior to that, he worked as a Korea equity sales for seven years, with his last position at Woori Investment & Securities. John obtained a M.Sc. in International Securities, Investment and Banking from the University of Reading in the U.K. and an M.A. in Business Economics from Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada.

Ayaz Ebrahim, managing director, is a portfolio manager and the co-head of the Asia Pacific Regional team within the EMAP Equities team based in Hong Kong. He also chairs the Asia Pacific Asset Allocation Committee. Before joining JPMAM in September 2015, Ayaz was previously with Amundi Hong Kong where he spent more than five years as the CIO of Asia ex-Japan equities and Deputy Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Prior to that Ayaz was the CIO, Asia Pacific, for both HSBC Global Asset Management and Deutsche Asset Management. From 1991 to 2002, he worked at Crédit Agricole Asset Management Hong Kong (now named Amundi Hong Kong Limited), initially as an investment manager and subsequently as CIO for Asia. Ayaz holds a Doctorate degree in Civil Law (DCL) and a

Bachelor of Science degree (Honours) in Accountancy from the University of East Anglia in the U.K.

(a) (2)

The following summarizes information regarding each of the accounts, excluding the Fund that was managed by the Portfolio Manager as of June 30, 2022. The advisory fee charged for managing each of the accounts listed below is not based on performance.

Responsibility for managing the client portfolios of the Advisor and the Advisor’s participating affiliates is organized according to the mandates of each account. The Fund’s portfolio managers manage other accounts with similar objectives, approach and philosophy to the Fund. The portfolio holdings, relative position sizes and industry and sector exposures tend to be similar across these similar portfolios, which minimizes the potential for conflicts of interest. For John Cho, these similar portfolios include one registered investment company and two pooled investment vehicles as described under ITEM 8 (a)(2)(ii) above that invest in the Korea market and only take long positions in securities.

For Ayaz Ebrahim, these similar portfolios include one registered investment company and two pooled investment vehicles as described under ITEM 8 (a)(2)(ii) above that invest in Korea markets and only take long positions in securities.

Upon managing multiple accounts, conflicts of interest may arise with both the aggregation and allocation of securities transactions and allocation of limited investment opportunities. Allocations of aggregated trades, particularly trade orders that were only partially completed due to limited availability, and allocation of investment opportunities generally, could raise a potential conflict of interest, as the Advisor or the portfolio managers may have an incentive to allocate securities that are expected to increase in value to favored accounts. Initial public offerings, in particular, are frequently of very limited availability. The portfolio managers may be perceived as causing accounts they manage to participate in an offering to increase the Advisor’s overall allocation of securities in that offering. A potential conflict of interest also may be perceived to arise if transactions in one account closely follow related transactions in a different account, such as when a purchase increases the value of securities previously purchased by another account, or when a sale in one account lowers the sale price received in a sale by a second account.

The Advisor has policies and procedures designed to manage these conflicts described above such as allocation of investment opportunities to achieve fair and equitable allocation of investment opportunities among its clients over time. For example, orders for the same equity security are aggregated on a continual basis throughout each trading day consistent with the Advisor’s duty of best execution for its clients. If aggregated trades are fully executed, accounts participating in the trade will be allocated their pro rata share on an average price basis. Partially completed orders generally will be allocated among the participating accounts on a pro-rata average price basis, subject to certain limited exceptions. For example, accounts that would receive a de minimis allocation relative to their size

may be excluded from the allocation. Another exception may occur when thin markets or price volatility require that an aggregated order be completed in multiple executions over several days. If partial completion of the order would result in an uneconomic allocation to an account due to fixed transaction or custody costs, the dealer may have the discretion to complete and exclude the small orders.

Purchases of money market instruments and fixed income securities cannot always be allocated pro-rata across the accounts with the same investment strategy and objective. However, the Advisor attempts to mitigate any potential unfairness by basing non-pro rata allocations upon an objective predetermined criteria for the selection of investments and a disciplined process for allocating securities with similar duration, credit quality and liquidity in the good faith judgment of the Advisor so that fair and equitable allocation will occur over time.

(a) (3)

JPMAM maintains a balanced total compensation program comprised of a mix of fixed compensation (including a competitive base salary and, for certain employees, a fixed cash allowance), and variable compensation in the form of cash incentives, and long-term incentives in the form of equity based and / or fund-tracking incentives that vest over time. Long-term awards comprise up to 60% of overall incentive compensation, depending on an employee’s pay level. It is believed that this pay structure encourages employees to focus on the long-term success of the firm, while avoiding excessive risk-taking, and provides a competitive annual cash incentive opportunity. Long-term awards are generally in the form of time vested JPMorgan Chase Restricted Stock Units (RSUs). However, investor employees are subject to a mandatory deferral of long-term incentive compensation under the firm’s Mandatory Investor Plan (MIP). MIP awards provide for a rate of return equal to that of the funds that the Investors manage, thereby aligning investors’ pay with that of their client’s experience / return. 100% of the Investor’s long term incentive compensation is eligible for MIP, 50% of which needs to be aligned with the specific fund they manage as determined by their respective Investment Committee member. The remaining portion of the overall amount is electable and may be treated as if invested in any of the other funds available in the plan or can take the form of RSUs. To hold individuals responsible for taking risks inconsistent with the firm’s risk appetite and to discourage future imprudent behavior, we have robust policies and procedures that enable us to take prompt and proportionate actions with respect to accountable individuals, including:

1. Reduce or altogether eliminate annual incentive compensation;

2. Cancel unvested awards (in full or in part);

3. Clawback / recovery of previously paid compensation (cash and / or equity);

4. Demotion, negative performance rating or other appropriate employment actions;

5. Termination of employment.

The precise actions taken with respect to accountable individuals are based on circumstances, including the nature of their involvement, the magnitude of the event and the impact on the firm.

(a) (4)

The following summarizes the dollar range of securities the portfolio manager for the Fund beneficially owned of the Fund that he managed as of June 30, 2022.