Korea Cyber Insurance Incident Cost & Coverage Gap Calculator

Model up to three data breach, ransomware, or system interruption incidents against verified category limits, waiting periods, deductibles, per-incident limits, and the remaining annual aggregate.

Scope first: this is not a claim decision or breach-notification test

Use verified schedule values to compare up to three incidents against category limits, deductibles, waiting periods, and aggregates. The tool does not price insurance, predict incidents, interpret policy wording, or decide Korean breach-reporting duties.

1. Build incidents in expected order

Enabled incidents consume annual capacity from number 1 onward. If that is not your expected order, move the values between cards.

Initial incident response
Privacy notification and support
Restoration and interruption
Extortion, third-party cost, and exclusions

2. Enter actual category limits and common terms

Copy amounts from the schedule, endorsements, or renewal quote. For an annual category, enter the currently remaining amount after earlier use.

Incident response

Digital forensics and initial legal review

Privacy response

Per-person notification and call-center support

Data restoration

Data and system recovery or reconstruction

Business interruption

Hourly contribution-margin loss after the waiting period

Cyber extortion response

Separately reviewed response cost subject to legal and sanctions checks

Third-party liability

Defense costs and counsel-reviewed settlement or judgment exposure

3. Protect operating cash after an incident

Separate payroll, rent, tax, and supplier cash before treating the remainder as available incident liquidity.

Incident cost and coverage-gap result

The model applies the waiting period, category limits, deductible, per-incident limit, then the remaining annual aggregate.

Total incident cost

KRW 178,000,000

Estimated policy payout

KRW 100,000,000

Total coverage gap

KRW 78,000,000

Protection rate

56.2%

The annual aggregate is exhausted in the scenario

Annual aggregate remaining

KRW 0

Liquidity after protected cash

KRW 20,000,000

Modeled affordable deductible per incident

KRW 6,600,000

Largest retained cost for one incident

KRW 39,000,000

Where the coverage gap appears

Gap driverAmount
Waiting-period gapKRW 12,000,000
Confirmed excluded costKRW 7,000,000
Unconfirmed-coverage gapKRW 0
Category-limit gapKRW 37,000,000
Applied deductibleKRW 15,000,000
Per-incident limit gapKRW 0
Annual aggregate gapKRW 7,000,000

Sequential result by incident

IncidentIncident typeConfirmedIncident costEstimated policy payoutRetained costAggregate after incident
1Personal data breachConfirmedKRW 64,000,000KRW 53,000,000KRW 11,000,000KRW 47,000,000
2Ransomware or extortion responseConfirmedKRW 74,000,000KRW 46,000,000KRW 28,000,000KRW 1,000,000
3Network or system interruptionConfirmedKRW 40,000,000KRW 1,000,000KRW 39,000,000KRW 0

Category result for the selected incident

Coverage categoryGross costCoverage-eligible modelLimit before incidentEstimated payoutUncovered
Incident responseKRW 12,000,000KRW 12,000,000KRW 30,000,000KRW 7,000,000KRW 5,000,000
Privacy responseKRW 15,000,000KRW 15,000,000KRW 20,000,000KRW 15,000,000KRW 0
Data restorationKRW 2,000,000KRW 2,000,000KRW 30,000,000KRW 2,000,000KRW 0
Business interruptionKRW 8,000,000KRW 4,000,000KRW 20,000,000KRW 4,000,000KRW 4,000,000
Cyber extortion responseKRW 0KRW 0KRW 0KRW 0KRW 0
Third-party liabilityKRW 25,000,000KRW 25,000,000KRW 30,000,000KRW 25,000,000KRW 0

Limit review values for renewal or exercises

These are rounded comparisons from your entered losses, not product or limit recommendations.

Coverage categoryBasisCurrent usable limitModeled needRounded review valueGap to current limitCategory limit remaining
Incident responseCurrent annual remainderKRW 30,000,000KRW 30,000,000KRW 30,000,000KRW 0KRW 15,000,000
Privacy responseCurrent annual remainderKRW 20,000,000KRW 15,000,000KRW 20,000,000KRW 0KRW 5,000,000
Data restorationCurrent annual remainderKRW 30,000,000KRW 27,000,000KRW 30,000,000KRW 0KRW 7,000,000
Business interruptionCurrent annual remainderKRW 20,000,000KRW 32,000,000KRW 40,000,000KRW 20,000,000KRW 0
Cyber extortion responseCurrent annual remainderKRW 0KRW 10,000,000KRW 10,000,000KRW 10,000,000KRW 0
Third-party liabilityCurrent annual remainderKRW 30,000,000KRW 45,000,000KRW 50,000,000KRW 20,000,000KRW 3,000,000
Combined per-incident limit—KRW 70,000,000KRW 65,000,000KRW 70,000,000KRW 0—
Annual aggregate—KRW 120,000,000KRW 179,000,000KRW 180,000,000KRW 60,000,000KRW 0

Questions for the policy contact and legal adviser

  • Annual category limits and the aggregate are consumed from incident 1 to 3, so a different order can change later-incident results.
  • Confirm whether defense costs or deductibles erode limits, plus the retroactive date, discovery date, notice deadline, shared limits, and other-insurance wording.
  • The Korean insurance, mutual-aid, or reserve obligation and statutory minimum depend on revenue, data-subject counts, and exceptions, so they are not decided automatically.
  • Affected records were entered. Promptly review Korean PIPA notification and 72-hour reporting criteria against the actual facts.
  • An extortion response cost was entered. Review legality, sanctions, law-enforcement coordination, and insurer consent separately.
  • This model reduces annual category limits only by estimated payout. Confirm the actual limit-erosion wording.

Related calculators

Why one headline cyber limit rarely explains the real cash gap

A cyber incident can trigger digital forensics, legal review, data-subject notification, call-center support, restoration work, interrupted operations, and third-party claims at different times.
A large limit on the policy cover sheet may sit above much smaller category limits, an interruption waiting period, a deductible for every incident, and an annual aggregate already reduced by an earlier claim.
Comparing one total loss number with one nominal policy limit can therefore hide the part that must be funded with company cash.

This calculator models up to three enabled incidents in displayed order and separates six coverage categories.
It removes waiting-period loss first, then applies category limits, the per-incident deductible, the combined per-incident limit, and the currently remaining annual aggregate.
The result is a transparent stress test for a policy discussion, not a premium quote, coverage opinion, loss adjustment, or legal notification decision.

How this differs from a ransomware recovery-cost calculator

A ransomware recovery calculator focuses on project costs such as restoration labor, replacement equipment, and downtime, then compares them with one confirmed insurance amount.
This tool starts where that estimate ends by asking which policy category receives each cost and how category limits, waiting periods, deductibles, and shared annual capacity change the estimated payout.
Use both when you need a detailed recovery budget and a separate policy-structure test.

Match six cost categories to the actual schedule

Incident response

Combine digital forensics and initial legal review, then locate the equivalent crisis-response, expert-cost, or incident-response wording in the policy.

Privacy response

Multiply affected people or records by the entered notification and support cost per person, while checking which communication and monitoring services the wording actually permits.

Data restoration

Enter direct recovery, reconstruction, and data recreation cost, but separate upgrades and security improvements that go beyond returning to the pre-incident state.

Business interruption

Multiply interrupted hours by contribution-margin loss per hour and remove the waiting period, using contribution margin rather than gross revenue.

Cyber extortion response

Enter only a separately reviewed response scenario because this calculator never recommends a ransom payment or decides legality, sanctions, or law-enforcement coordination.

Third-party liability

Combine defense cost with counsel-reviewed settlement or judgment exposure without automatically multiplying damages or treating regulatory penalties as covered.

Keep confirmed exclusions outside the six categories

Do not quietly mix fines, penalties, enhanced contractual liability, pre-incident improvements, or another wording exclusion into a covered category.
Enter only costs that the schedule or an adviser has identified as excluded, so the output distinguishes a category-limit shortage from a cost that the model never sends to the insurer.

The allocation order makes every gap traceable

  1. Add the six category costs and the confirmed excluded cost for every enabled incident.
  2. Remove the cost generated during the business-interruption waiting period.
  3. Apply either a fresh per-incident category limit or the current remainder of an annual category limit.
  4. Allocate the deductible in a fixed order from incident response through third-party liability.
  5. Apply the combined per-incident limit and then the remaining annual aggregate in the same category order.
  6. Reduce annual category limits and the annual aggregate by final estimated payout before processing the next incident.

The waiting-period gap, exclusion, category-limit gap, deductible, per-incident gap, and aggregate gap do not overlap in this model.
Their sum must equal gross incident cost minus estimated payout, which makes the result suitable for checking and explaining.
Actual wording may treat defense costs, deductibles, claim expenses, or related events differently, so the fixed order is a disclosed modeling convention rather than a legal interpretation.

Worked example of a single incident

Consider gross incident cost of KRW 41 million with only KRW 25 million left in the annual aggregate.
The model first identifies KRW 2 million of waiting-period loss, KRW 3.5 million above category limits, and KRW 1 million of confirmed excluded cost.
A KRW 4 million deductible, a KRW 0.5 million per-incident limit gap, and a KRW 5 million aggregate gap then leave an estimated payout of KRW 25 million and retained cost of KRW 16 million.

Worked cyber incident coverage-gap result
ResultAmountInterpretation
Gross incident costKRW 41.0MAll six cost categories plus confirmed exclusions
Estimated payoutKRW 25.0MAmount left after every entered policy constraint
Coverage gapKRW 16.0MModeled amount requiring another funding source
Protection rate61.0%Estimated payout divided by gross incident cost

The protection rate alone is not the decision.
A waiting-period problem calls for a different discussion from a privacy sublimit problem or an aggregate depleted by earlier claims.
Read the gap-driver and category tables before changing a limit or setting aside cash.

What to copy from the schedule and endorsements

Cyber policy review fields
Policy itemCalculator fieldQuestion to ask
Schedule and endorsementsSix category limitsIs each amount per incident or shared for the annual period?
Retention wordingDeductible per incidentCan related events be treated as one incident?
Interruption sectionWaiting hours and hourly marginWhen does the wait start and how is covered profit defined?
Combined event limitPer-incident limitDo defense and expert costs erode this limit?
Annual aggregateNominal limit and prior payoutDo reserves or unresolved claims reduce current capacity?
Notice conditionsCoverage-confirmed switchWhat are the discovery, insurer-notice, consent, and panel-provider rules?

Per-incident category limit

This amount becomes available again for each enabled incident in the model.
A separate combined per-incident limit can still cap the sum that passes all category limits.

Current annual category remainder

This is shared by incidents and starts with the usable amount remaining after earlier loss.
The calculator reduces it by final category payout before moving to the next incident.

Korean PIPA timing must be reviewed separately and promptly

As checked on August 17, 2026, Article 34 of the current Korean Personal Information Protection Act provides the statutory basis for notifying data subjects after specified loss, theft, or leakage and for taking measures to minimize harm.
Article 39 of the Enforcement Decree generally requires notice within 72 hours after learning of the event unless a justified reason applies, with a publication method for situations such as unavailable contact details.
Article 40 of the Decree provides 72-hour reporting criteria involving at least 1,000 data subjects, sensitive or unique-identification information, or illegal external access, subject to the full legal conditions.
The checked texts are Act ID 011357, MST 270351, effective October 2, 2025, and Enforcement Decree ID 011468, MST 286175, effective May 19, 2026.

Affected records are a cost input, not a legal conclusion

The affected-record input only multiplies notification and support cost.
Data type, access method, confirmed timing, mitigation, and exceptions also matter, so the tool cannot decide whether notice or reporting is legally required.
If an incident may have occurred, begin the legal and response review immediately rather than waiting for this financial model to be completed.

  • Review the official Article 34 XML for the Act-level notification and reporting basis.
  • Review the official Decree XML for Article 39 and Article 40 for the detailed timing and criteria.
  • Article 39 of the Act allows a court to set damages up to five times actual loss in specified intentional or gross-negligence cases, but this model never applies an automatic multiplier.

Statutory minimum amounts are a reference, not an automatic result

Article 39-7 of PIPA and Article 48-7 of its Enforcement Decree address insurance, mutual-aid membership, or reserves for certain personal-information controllers.
The basic size criteria in the current Decree use both at least KRW 1 billion of prior-year revenue and at least 10,000 average daily data subjects over the specified three-month period, while statutory exceptions and calculation rules still need review.
The table below restates Appendix 1-4 only as a reading aid.

Reference minimum insurance or reserve amounts under Appendix 1-4
Average daily data subjectsRevenue above KRW 80BAbove KRW 5B to KRW 80BKRW 1B to KRW 5B
At least 1 millionKRW 1BKRW 500MKRW 200M
100,000 to below 1 millionKRW 500MKRW 200MKRW 100M
10,000 to below 100,000KRW 200MKRW 100MKRW 50M

Revenue measurement, data-subject counting, exceptions, and the relationship between insurance and reserves can change the conclusion.
The calculator therefore never replaces an entered policy limit with this table or declares that an organization is subject to the rule.
The official Appendix 1-4 serial identifier is 18138337 and should be read with current Decree Article 48-7.
Check the official Appendix 1-4 detail and the law in force at the decision date.

Three practical ways to use the model

Renewal comparison

Enter the current policy and competing renewal schedules separately to see whether a larger headline aggregate leaves privacy response, interruption, or third-party category limits unchanged.

Incident exercise

Place a data breach, ransomware event, and system outage in annual order to identify which later incident loses payout when shared category capacity or the aggregate is depleted.

Deductible discussion

Protect payroll and rent first, then compare the remaining liquidity per enabled incident with the current deductible before accepting more retained risk for a premium reduction.

Frequently asked questions

Does a zero category limit mean unlimited cover?

No. Zero means no confirmed usable amount in this model, so verify any apparently unlimited wording against the combined incident limit, aggregate, and shared endorsements before entering a number.

Are the three incidents alternatives or cumulative events?

Enabled incidents are treated as events that all occur in one policy period and consume capacity in displayed order, while alternative scenarios can be compared by enabling one incident at a time.

Why use contribution margin instead of revenue?

Variable costs may decline when operations stop, so gross revenue can overstate the economic loss, although the exact covered-profit definition and period still come from the policy.

Why is an unconfirmed incident treated as a full gap?

The conservative setting prevents the tool from inventing partial cover before the trigger, retroactive date, discovery date, and notice conditions have been checked.

Is the rounded review value a recommended limit?

No. It is only the entered eligible cost rounded upward for a policy discussion and does not include probability, premium, financial capacity, other insurance, or a suitability assessment.

Should regulatory penalties or enhanced damages be added?

Do not add an automatic amount because insurability and liability depend on law, facts, and wording; enter only counsel-reviewed third-party exposure or a separately confirmed exclusion.

Prepare source documents before entering values

Useful source material

  • Policy cover sheet, schedule, endorsements, and the latest renewal quote
  • Backup exercise results and vendor quotes for forensics, legal review, and support
  • Hourly contribution margin, maximum tolerable downtime, and emergency cash policy
  • Prior payouts, unresolved claims, reserves, and confirmation of remaining category limits

Important cautions

  • Never treat the example values as market averages or suitable limits
  • Do not mark uncertain coverage as confirmed merely to produce a payout
  • Do not delay statutory notice or reporting review while waiting for insurance analysis
  • Do not submit this result as a claim determination, legal opinion, or loss-adjustment report

Take the gap drivers, not only the total, into the renewal meeting

Copy actual category limits and their basis first, then place credible internal cost estimates into as many as three incidents.
Share which waiting period, category limit, deductible, or aggregate produced the gap with the insurer, broker, legal adviser, and response owner.
If retained cost crosses protected operating cash, coordinate emergency liquidity, supplier terms, backup recovery, and response priorities alongside any policy change.

The legal references reflect the current Korean PIPA and Enforcement Decree checked on August 17, 2026.
Recheck the law in force and the complete policy wording when making an actual decision.