S

Commercial Code Treasury Stock Audit Tool

4.05

Derivation Chain

Step 1 Commercial Code amendment mandating treasury stock retirement
→
Step 2 Listed company treasury stock management compliance demand
→
Step 3 Automated treasury stock retirement compliance audit SaaS

Competitor references

No usable source links are available for this idea. Its signal notes and scores need independent verification.

Problem

With the 3rd Commercial Code amendment making treasury stock retirement mandatory, IR/finance teams (3-20 employees) at KOSPI and KOSDAQ-listed companies must manually track treasury stock holdings, plan retirement schedules, and draft disclosure statements. In the early stages of enforcement with unclear legal interpretations, missing retirement deadlines triggers penalty risks and shareholder lawsuits, while external law firm advisory fees alone cost $3,750-$15,000 (~5-20 million KRW) per engagement.

Solution

Automatically collects DART disclosure and electronic voting data to track treasury stock holding changes in real-time, providing automated D-90/60/30 retirement deadline alerts and draft disclosure generation. Supports IR team decision-making with benchmark reports of retirement cases from similarly-sized companies, reducing costs to 1/10th of law firm fees.

Target: IR/finance team managers at KOSPI/KOSDAQ-listed companies with market capitalization between $37.5M-$375M (~50-500 billion KRW)
Revenue Model: SaaS monthly subscription at $217/month (~290,000 KRW) per corporate account, 20% discount for annual billing. Draft disclosure generation charged at $37.50 (~50,000 KRW) per document.
Ecosystem Role: Regulation
MVP Estimate: 2_weeks

NUMR-V Scores

N Novelty
4.0/5
U Urgency
5.0/5
M Market
3.0/5
R Realizability
4.0/5
V Validation
4.0/5
NUMR-V Scoring System
N Novelty1-5How uncommon the service is in market context.
U Urgency1-5How urgently users need this problem solved now.
M Market1-5Market size and growth potential from proxy indicators.
R Realizability1-5Buildability for a small team with realistic constraints.
V Validation1-5Validation signal quality from competition and demand data.
Each dimension is scored 1-5 and weighted into grade S/A/B/C/D.
N=.15 U=.20 M=.15 R=.30 V=.20

Feasibility (70%)

Tech Complexity
29.3/40
Data Availability
20.4/25
MVP Timeline
20.0/20
API Bonus
0.0/15
Feasibility Breakdown
Tech Complexity/ 40Difficulty of core implementation stack.
Data Availability/ 25Practical availability and cost of required data.
MVP Timeline/ 20Expected time to ship a usable MVP.
API Bonus/ 15Bonus for viable public API leverage.
Total 100 points; below 50% is filtered out.

Market Validation (62/100)

Competition
8.0/20
Market Demand
6.2/20
Timing
18.0/20
Revenue Signals
10.5/15
Pick-Axe Fit
12.0/15
Solo Buildability
7.0/10
Validation Breakdown
Competition/ 20Signal quality from competitor landscape.
Market Demand/ 20Demand proxies from search and mention patterns.
Timing/ 20Fit with current shifts in tech, behavior, and regulation.
Revenue Signals/ 15Reference evidence for monetization viability.
Pick-Axe Fit/ 15How well the concept serves participants in a trend.
Solo Buildability/ 10Practicality for lean-team implementation.
Total 100 points; below 50 is filtered out.

Technical Requirements

Backend [medium] Frontend [low] AI/ML [medium]
Dashboard