Press Coverage

As famous celebrities became embroiled in suspicions of ‘injection aunts’, the practice of medical visits outside hospitals was put on the chopping block. We looked into the legal standards, exceptions, and level of punishment for home visits, which are widely practiced even among the general public. Following comedian Park Na-rae, the so-called ‘rosacea aunt’ controversy is spreading widely in the entertainment industry, including famous idol group members and YouTubers. When suspicions arose, they admitted to illegally visiting medical services and declared a cessation of broadcasting activities. Aunt Juju refers to a type of ‘unlicensed illegal medical practitioner.’ It is a metaphorical term for a woman who visits homes without a medical license and illegally administers nutritional supplements or injections. It is difficult to dismiss illegal medical visits as an aberration of some celebrities. In online communities such as mom cafes and SNS, you can easily find posts such as “Looking for a nurse to give injections at home” or “I have an IV in my family at home because I have a nurse.” In one online cafe, there was even a line of comments such as “I left your number in a message” on a post asking “I’m not feeling well right now. Can I get an IV in 2 hours?” This suggests that visiting medical services are being carried out without protection even among the general public. Jang Hyeon-jae, director of Fatima Clinic, a specialist in home visits for 29 years, cited ‘lack of awareness’ as the main reason for illegal visit treatment. There are many people who view IV treatment outside the hospital as a simple nutritional supplement and do not recognize it as a medical practice. Director Jang Hyeon-jae said, “When we provide on-site treatment, due to the nature of the space, we are not fully equipped with medical equipment like hospitals, so we are more careful about diagnosis.” Non-medical people without medical qualifications visit ‘Aunt Rosacea’According to Article 33 of the Medical Service Act, IV procedures performed outside hospitals are clearly illegal under the Medical Service Act. This means that the procedure should only be performed at medical institutions where medical services can be performed. However, as an exception, in cases where emergency patients are treated in accordance with the Emergency Medical Services Act or at the request of the patient or patient's guardian, treatment may be performed at a location other than a medical institution. In addition, visitation treatment is permitted when the head of the national or local government deems it necessary for the public interest or when there are unavoidable reasons for providing treatment at the patient's location. So what are the criteria for judging the first exception, ‘emergency patient’? Attorney Jang Se-chang of Daeryun Law Firm said, “It depends on the judgment of the medical staff,” and added, “Under the exception rule that ‘treatment is possible upon request from the patient or guardian,’ it is possible to receive on-site treatment even if it is not an emergency.” He said, “However, if you use visit treatment even if you are able to move or it is not an emergency, you cannot apply for health insurance medical fees,” and added, “The patient must pay the full cost of visit treatment.” The court and the Ministry of Health and Welfare are interpreting the exceptional circumstances mentioned above relatively strictly. For example, in 2011, in a case where a medical corporation required its doctors to regularly visit multiple social welfare facilities and provide treatment, the Supreme Court ruled that ‘medical treatment at the request of a patient or patient’s guardian’ only means cases in which it is provided in response to an individual and specific request from a specific patient. This means that the act of deliberately repeating medical visits without the patient's request may also constitute a violation of medical law. Visiting treatment is only possible with a domestic medical license. In other words, it means that medical practices such as nurses coming to people’s homes to prescribe prescriptions and administer injections are ‘illegal.’ Some say that “retired nurses and currently active nurses can apply,” but this is also not true. This is because Article 27 of the Medical Service Act states, “Medical personnel cannot perform medical practices other than those licensed.” Nurses serve as assistants in medical treatment performed under the guidance of doctors. This means that nurses can administer drugs according to the doctor's prescriptions and instructions, but they cannot decide the type or dosage of the drug on their own. However, there is an exception in cases where patients who have been discharged after surgery or have difficulty moving receive ‘home nursing services.’ A family nurse practitioner who has passed the national qualification examination can administer medication according to a doctor's prescription at a location other than a medical institution. Therefore, the medical community believes that “those who are called ‘aunts of injections’ are likely to be non-medical people who are not qualified to visit medical services.”The risks and punishment levels of illegal medical visits must be emphasized.In online communities, there are also stories of experiences in which a family member or acquaintance who is a doctor provided medical treatment on a visit. Jinhee Kim, a medical lawyer, said, “Cases like this can be viewed as the standard for general visit treatment.” He said, “However, in accordance with relevant laws, you must keep a medical record containing symptoms, diagnosis, treatment process, and details to avoid problems later.” If a person who is not qualified to be a medical professional provides on-site treatment, he or she may be subject to imprisonment of up to 5 years or a fine of up to 50 million won. Attorney Jang Se-chang warned, “If such an act is repeatedly carried out for money or made into a business, the ‘Special Measures Act on the Control of Health Crimes’ rather than the Medical Service Act applies, and the person can be imprisoned for life or more than two years.” According to a 1997 case law, “if a medical visit is carried out with the intention to repeat illegal medical practice, it is considered ‘medical practice as a profession,’ even if the act is limited to a one-time act.” The same goes for drugs. According to the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, non-pharmacy owners (pharmacists or oriental pharmacists) cannot sell medicines, and medicines cannot be sold in places other than stores. In particular, prescription drugs can only be sold with a doctor's prescription. Violation of this may result in imprisonment of up to 5 years or a fine of up to 50 million won according to the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act. It is also illegal for pharmacists to provide on-site medical treatment, diagnose a patient's illness, and provide prescription medication. In fact, in 2017, the Supreme Court judged and punished a case in which a person holding only a pharmacist's license performed medical treatment that falls within the exclusive domain of a doctor as an unlicensed medical practice. What kind of punishment will a patient who received medical treatment receive? If the patient did not know that the medical practice was illegal, in principle, he or she is not subject to criminal punishment. However, if you are more than a simple victim and are an ‘instructor’ who caused someone to practice medicine without a license, you cannot be free from legal responsibility. Article 27, Paragraph 5 of the Medical Service Act stipulates that “no one shall allow a non-medical person to perform medical services.” Even if the subject of treatment is ‘oneself,’ it is against the law. There is also a need to reconsider awareness of illegal home visits and drug prescriptions. In particular, there is a tendency to think that nutritional supplements, such as intravenous fluids, can be easily administered anywhere without a doctor's diagnosis. In principle, fluids are prescribed when there is a medical need, such as dehydration, electrolyte abnormalities, or infection. Lee Yoo-jeong, a professor of family medicine at Korea University Guro Hospital, warned, “If you repeatedly receive intravenous fluids without a doctor’s prescription, infection at the injection site or inflammation of blood vessels may occur. Excessive moisture builds up in the body, which poses a risk to the heart and lungs, and in severe cases, there is a possibility that it may lead to systemic infection.” #Home medical care #Illegal procedure #Illegal prescription #Injection aunt #Women’s Donga[View full article] Aftereffects of the ‘aunt who gave injections’, “To what extent is home visit treatment legal?” (Shortcut)

33 million information leaked... The meaning of the 'subclass' strategy for Korean consumers There is heated discussion both inside and outside the legal community regarding the recent Coupang, Inc. incident in which personal information of 33 million people was leaked. At a time when most people are preparing for domestic lawsuits, there are many who are questioning the fact that my law firm, SJKP, LLP (Daeryun Law Firm's U.S. partner), submitted a complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (EDNY). The question is, “For a company that generates most of its sales in Korea, why did they choose the US court, which has difficult procedures?” The answer to that question is clear. The core of this lawsuit is to hold Coupang's U.S. headquarters (Inc.) fundamentally responsible for the incident and force it to establish a practical system to prevent recurrence. And SJKP's judgment is that the optimal judicial battlefield to realize this is the United States. This is not simply an attempt to assert the superiority of American legal procedures. It is the result of intense legal consideration to provide the most practical means of relief to victims in cross-border data breach incidents. The point that differentiates this lawsuit most from domestic lawsuits is the expansion of 'defendant eligibility.' In the complaint, not only Coupang Corporation but also Chairman Kim Beom-seok were listed as co-defendants. This is not simply a symbolic choice based on the position of corporate representative. Under U.S. law, if a corporate violation occurs due to direct involvement or approval of management, or due to gross negligence in management, the executive may be held liable separately from the corporation. SJKP believed that Chairman Kim Beom-seok should take actual responsibility for this 'internal control failure' as the final decision-maker on security policy and budget. Furthermore, it is also clear that there is a violation of Article 349 of the New York State Corporation Law (N.Y. GBL). This provision strictly prohibits acts or practices that deceive consumers. Coupang has continued to give the impression that it has a sufficient security system, but in reality it operates a lax security system that falls short of this, misleading consumers. The final responsibility for these 'deceptive practices' cannot but fall on Chairman Kim Beom-seok, who oversaw the policy direction. In addition, we plan to actively utilize the 'discovery' system, which is the core of US civil litigation, to identify the governance failure, which is the root cause of this incident. Unlike in Korea, where it is difficult to prove a victim, in American courts, decisive evidence such as internal emails or decision-making meeting minutes can be forcibly obtained. Through this, SJKP will thoroughly uncover whether Chairman Kim Beom-seok and the headquarters were aware of security vulnerabilities but tolerated improvements for profitability reasons. This goes beyond a simple data leak and proves the 'collapse of governance', which is a neglect of the responsibilities of the highest decision-making system, and will become a powerful driving force for demanding strict legal responsibility. Some are focusing on the amount of damages claimed over $5 million (approximately KRW 7.3 billion), but the true value of this lawsuit, which legal experts should pay attention to, lies in 'equitable damages.' Unlike domestic civil lawsuits, which often limit to ex post facto monetary compensation, U.S. courts can issue 'Declaratory Relief', which officially confirms that a company's actions are illegal, through a ruling, and 'Injunctive Relief' that forces specific actions. In addition, SJKP requested the court to order Coupang to establish the best security system and mandate a multi-factor authentication system. This goes beyond a simple agreement and is a will to prevent a second leak by forcibly reorganizing the company's security governance. In addition, the goal is to bring about 'systematic change' by demanding strengthened monitoring services for minors and the elderly who are vulnerable to identity theft. Another decisive reason for choosing the U.S. court is the strategy of forming a 'class'. This lawsuit has New York residents as the representative plaintiffs, but victims residing in Korea are designated as a 'subclass'. A subclass is a device that separately classifies and protects groups with different residences or legal issues within the overall group. Through this structure, Korean consumers will be able to enjoy the same effects of the U.S. court's favorable ruling, and the benefits of the security enhancement order will also extend beyond the border to Korean users. In the end, the reason why SJKP headed to the U.S. court is clear. This lawsuit is not just a battle for compensation, but a fight to establish the company's 'data security obligations' that meet global standards. We are confident that this lawsuit will become a milestone in new digital justice that prevents global companies from avoiding responsibility and ensures that consumer rights are fully protected regardless of national borders. Small and Medium Business Team[View full article] Why New York and not Seoul... Coupang lawsuit asks for ‘digital responsibility’ beyond punishment (Shortcut)

Legal advice for Korean companies entering Vietnam… Daeryun Law Firm, a one-stop support company for investment, licensing and dispute response, provides customized legal solutions through local practice-based partnerships in Vietnam.” Daeryun Law Firm announced on the 12th that it has signed a business agreement (MOU) with Tri Minh Law Firm in Vietnam and will establish a legal service cooperation system between Korea and Vietnam. The agreement ceremony, which was held virtually at the Daeryun Gangnam branch office on the 4th, included CEO of Daeryun Jeong Chan-woo, lawyer Yoon Kyeong-won, and Tri Minh Law Firm. Key officials from both sides, including representative attorney Nguyen Minh Anh and Ho Chi Minh branch vice-governor Nguyen Bui Ba Huy, attended. Tri Minh Law Firm was established in Hanoi, Vietnam in 2007 and has strengths in the field of foreign investment and corporate legal affairs. In particular, based on a cooperative network with major government agencies such as the Vietnamese Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Planning and Investment, it helps foreign companies enter Vietnam. Through this MOU, the two companies plan to provide integrated legal services to Korean companies pursuing entry into Vietnam and Vietnamese companies interested in the Korean market. Specifically, ▲Advice on licensing and investment in Vietnam entry ▲Advice on corporate investment and M&A structures between Korea and Vietnam ▲Legal support for real estate and construction projects ▲Advice on finance, banking and commercial transactions We cooperate in various fields such as ▲labor, personnel and intellectual property rights advisory ▲joint response to local disputes and commercial arbitration. In particular, this MOU is significant in that it goes beyond simple business cooperation and establishes a foundation for cooperation that expands legal service exchanges between Vietnam and Korea and provides practical support for the mutual advancement of companies. NGUYEN MINH ANH, representative attorney at Tri Minh Law Firm, said, “We are very honored and proud to have signed an MOU with Daelun. “I think this agreement will not only be a cooperation between two law firms, but will also be an important starting point for legal cooperation between Vietnam and Korea and a meaningful milestone that will provide real value to companies and citizens of both countries,” said CEO Daeryun Jeong Chan-woo. “We will provide specialized legal solutions for the Vietnamese market through cooperation with law firms.” Meanwhile, Daeryun Law Firm is continuously strengthening its global legal service system by expanding its cooperation network with law firms and professional organizations in major countries such as the United States, China, and Japan. #Vietnam #Daeryun #Business Agreement Seok-ho Park (haitai2000@ikbc.co.kr)[View full article] “Building a legal bridge between Korea and Vietnam”... Daeryun signs MOU with Vietnam's Trimin Law Firm (Click here)

"It is unfair to consider an act repeated for several months as not serious after several months of school violence," said the court, which judged the school violence repeated for several months individually and judged the "soft baton" punishment given to the perpetrator to be unfair. According to the legal community on the 12th, the 1st and 2nd administrative divisions of the Incheon District Court ruled that the 1st and 2nd administrative divisions of the Incheon District Court on January 22 were teenager A at the Incheon Southern Office of Education. A decision was made in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against the superintendent of schools to cancel the written apology. Previously, Group A filed an administrative lawsuit against the school violence review committee's decision to issue a written apology (No. 1), the lowest level, to student B. Group A is said to have suffered physical and mental harassment from Group B and his group since 2024. At that time, it was investigated that Group B and others had used violence against Group A under the pretext of ‘sparring’ (exchanging prices with an opponent in boxing). Afterwards, Group A’s parents obtained a pledge to prevent recurrence from the offending student, but Group B continued to harass Group A by swearing at him or criticizing him in front of the students around him. Ultimately, Group A reported the damage to the school. However, the School Violence Committee issued the lowest level of written apology (No. 1) on the grounds that the vulgar language used by Group B was a common expression among students and that the remarks encouraging bullying were not directly aimed at Group A. In response, Group A protested, saying, “This is a rash measure taken without a proper investigation,” and argued that stronger measures are needed. The Office of Education countered, saying that it had obtained sufficient statements from the parties and the students who witnessed it and conducted a thorough investigation. In addition, he emphasized that the investigation cannot be considered inadequate just because A's claim was not accepted, and that the School Violence Response Review Committee cannot impose disciplinary action based on uncertain circumstances or speculation. However, the court ruled in A's favor. The court ruled, “Even if it was not a direct comment toward the plaintiff (Group A), looking at the entire context, there is ample room to view it as words and actions intended to exclude the plaintiff from a public place and intentionally humiliate him.” He continued, “It is not reasonable to deny intentionality from the perspective of deeming the actions repeated for several months to be insignificant when judged individually,” adding, “Imposing a disposition without even confirming additional facts simply because the statements of both sides are contradictory and there is no evidence is a serious error in the basic judgment elements. Mr. A's legal representative, Kim Dong-jin, a lawyer at the Daeryun Law Firm, said, "The regulations for handling school violence cases define bullying and ridicule as types of bullying, but the Office of Education only judged whether this constituted verbal violence and did not review whether it was bullying." He added, "Even though Mr. B's remarks seemed ordinary on the outside, we were able to win the case by proving that behind them there was an intention to persistently isolate and ridicule Mr. A." Reporter Lee Sil-yu lsy0808@kyeonggi.com[View full article] Gyeonggi Ilbo - After suffering from school violence for several months, only a ‘written apology’?… Court: “It is not valid” (Shortcut) Herald Economy - The Office of Education says ‘it’s over with an apology’ to the victims of terrible school violence… Court: “Disposition is unfair” (Shortcut)

Daeryun Law Firm announced on the 12th that it had successfully completed the ‘Legal Dispute Response and Investment Strategy Seminar for Companies Entering China and Vietnam’. This seminar was prepared to explore preemptive response strategies for Korean companies to the rapidly changing business environment in China and the Vietnamese market, a key point of the global supply chain, and was jointly held by Daeryun and the Korea-China Association of Korea on the 11th at the FKI Tower Conference Center in Yeouido, Seoul. The seminar site included traditional areas such as manufacturing and construction. Executives from various industries preparing to target the local domestic market, including industrial groups, distribution, healthcare, and beauty, attended. In particular, participants who wanted to explore local M&A and new business opportunities beyond simple production base relocation showed great interest. The seminar was divided into a total of two sessions. Attorney Kyung-won Yoon, who was the first presenter in the first China session, introduced risks in each field such as contracts, intellectual property rights, labor, and investment recovery in detail under the topic of ‘Types of legal disputes and points to keep in mind when entering the Chinese market.’ Attorney Yoon emphasized, “In Chinese business, preliminary review of contracts is the first step in preventing disputes.” He emphasized, "Clarify the provisions for resolving disputes with local partners. Preemptive registration and monitoring are essential for intellectual property rights issues such as trademark infringement." Regarding China's recently strengthened data protection laws, he advised, "Special attention should be paid to compliance such as safety evaluation of data transfers abroad." Park Seung-chan, chairman of the Korea-China Association and director of the China Management Research Institute, made a presentation on the topic of 'the recent Korea-China summit and our companies' response.' Chairman Park analyzed, “Korea-China economic relations have gone beyond simple mutual complementation and have entered the ‘5.0 era’ of full competition and horizontal cooperation. As China’s technological independence and supply chain internalization accelerate, our companies must read the flow of supply chain reorganization and establish more sophisticated localization strategies.” In the second Vietnam session, lawyer Daeryun Choi Young-jin explained ‘Types of legal disputes and points to keep in mind when entering Vietnam.’ Attorney Choi compared the pros and cons of establishing a new corporation, joint venture, and M&A as methods of entering Vietnam. He explained, “M&A allows for quick market entry, but there is a risk of inheriting hidden risks such as tax and land use rights of the acquired company. Statement guarantees and contingent liability compensation structures through acquisition contracts, etc. are essential.” He then emphasized, “Borrowing in the name of local people should be avoided as it is difficult to be legally protected and may lead to loss of management rights.” Choi Ho-cheol, PM of the Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency (KOTRA), gave a presentation on the topic of ‘Vietnam Investment Advancement Support Project, Success Stories, and Investment Opportunities.’ PM Choi said, “Vietnam is transforming beyond a production base into a huge consumer market with a population of 100 million,” and “The M&A strategy that goes beyond simple manufacturing and targets domestic markets such as distribution, consumer goods, and healthcare is effective.” Daeryun Kim Kook-il, CEO of Management, said, “I hope that this seminar will serve as an opportunity for our companies to find practical solutions in an increasingly complex global trade environment.” He added, “We will continue to work on local legal risk diagnosis through Chinese and Vietnamese groups.” “We will closely support the company’s entire overseas expansion process, including M&A and dispute resolution,” he said. Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] Seoul Shinmun - Daeryun Law Firm successfully completes ‘strategy seminar’ for companies entering China and Vietnam (Go here) Sejeong Ilbo - Daeryun Law Firm’s ‘Strategy Seminar’ for companies entering China and Vietnam was a success (Go here)

'Strategic non-reporting' is on the rise, and legal disputes are rapidly increasing. 'Family order' must be proven to receive legal protection. 'Common-law marriage' refers to a relationship in which people live together like a married couple without legally registering their marriage. In particular, it refers to a relationship that needs to be protected as a de facto legal couple. In the past, there were many cases where middle-aged people or remarried families maintained a common-law relationship without registering their marriage due to unavoidable circumstances, but the recent situation is different. There is an increasing number of cases in which the younger generation postpones marriage registration due to the need to maintain a single household for economic reasons such as loans and subscriptions, or free dating relationships. As the ‘common-law marriage’ family form increases in our society, related legal disputes are also increasing. Many people often think that living together for a certain period of time constitutes a common-law marriage. However, contrary to general perception, the court's standards for judgment are much more stringent. In fact, this means that, like a married couple who has registered their marriage, they must be able to objectively prove that it was a relationship that requires legal protection. In fact, the Supreme Court also stipulates that for common-law marriage, “simple cohabitation or an intermittent romantic relationship is not enough; the parties must subjectively have the intention to marry and objectively, there must exist the substance of the marital life that allows joint life between spouses to be recognized in terms of family order in terms of social concepts” (see Supreme Court decision 2000Da52943, delivered on April 13, 2001, etc.). In fact, the court’s criteria for such judgment were also used in cases that the author was in charge of. You can get a glimpse. Client A provided housing to his lover and temporarily covered living expenses. However, they were unable to overcome conflicts such as personality differences, and the conflict began when the ex-lover insisted on a common-law marriage and requested property division and alimony. The author argued that a common-law marriage was not established by emphasizing that the couple did not have a wedding during the litigation process and that although it is difficult to reveal specific cases, they did not act as spouses or communicate with the other party's relatives and family. The court also did not recognize their relationship as a ‘common-law marriage.’ It was determined that there was no evidence to support a common-law marriage. As the ‘common-law marriage’ was not recognized, all claims for property division and alimony were dismissed. As such, the court’s standards in common-law marriage disputes require objective indicators, contrary to our expectations. This is why you should not think that you can easily receive legal protection just because common-law marriage has become common. When a dispute arises, there are surprisingly many cases in which no protection is provided. Therefore, if a common-law marriage must be recognized or its establishment cannot be recognized, you should check your situation in advance from a legal perspective. Just because you have not legally registered your marriage does not mean that you are relieved of all responsibility or that your rights are not recognized. However, in order to be legally recognized, it is not important to simply live together, but it is necessary to consider whether they have ever expressed their intention to marry, whether there is a basis to believe that they are an actual couple or started a family, and what evidence is available to prove this. Whether or not you are in a common-law marriage is not a matter to be disputed after the fact, but rather a matter that requires sufficient consultation with a legal expert to accurately check your relationship and rights before a dispute arises. ● Contributions by external writers may differ from the editorial direction of this paper. Gyeonggi Ilbo webmaster@kyeonggi.com[View full article] [Contribution] Common-law marriage, protected as much as you know (Shortcut)

The police are speeding up their investigation into whether data preservation orders were violated in relation to the 'Coupang personal information leak incident'. As some of the data that can confirm the specific information access process is lost, the possibility of administrator punishment is also raised. According to the police on the 11th, the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency's Coupang Investigation Comprehensive Task Force (Task Force) began an additional investigation into a request from the Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) the previous day to investigate Coupang's failure to comply with data preservation orders. The Ministry of Science and ICT announced the final investigation results of the Coupang infringement incident the previous day and used the app for a total of 11 days from May 23 to June 2 last year. They confirmed that the connection records (logs) had been deleted and requested the police to investigate. In addition to requesting an investigation into the deletion of web logs in December of last year, the scope of the investigation was expanded to include the deletion of app logs. In accordance with the Information and Communications Network Act, the Ministry of Science and ICT ordered Coupang to preserve data on November 19 last year when the infringement report was received, but the explanation is that Coupang did not adjust its automatic log storage policy, so the records that should have been left disappeared. According to the Ministry of Science and ICT, Coupang stores app logs every six months. If the data preservation order had been implemented immediately, the records from May 23 should have remained, so the government believes that Coupang took related action only after December of last year. An app log is a type of 'logbook' in which all user actions that run the app are recorded. This is an important clue to specifically identify the subject accessing information when analyzing a breach incident. Heung-Yeol Yeom, Professor Emeritus of Information Security at Soonchunhyang University, explained, “Both web logs and app logs are needed to determine the circumstances of the leak.” The police are investigating not only the app logs but also the circumstances of the web log deletion. Web logs were deleted for about 5 months before the leak suspect left the company. Although there is a difference from the time when the suspect began committing the crime in earnest, it is evaluated as data that can be used to examine the background of the attack, etc. Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency Commissioner Park Jeong-bo said at a regular meeting on the 9th, "We are also investigating the necessary personnel in relation to the investigation requested by the Ministry of Science and ICT." Under the current law, deleting access records can be punished by imprisonment for up to 2 years or a fine of up to 20 million won. Corporations can also be punished as they fall under the dual punishment provisions. Accordingly, the police are expected to look into the circumstances surrounding Coupang's failure to comply with the data preservation order. The data preservation controversy has been repeated in the past whenever personal information was leaked, including at SK Telecom and KT. As the possibility of evidence being destroyed has been steadily raised, the Personal Information Committee recently announced a policy to establish a new evidence preservation order system that enforces data preservation when an investigation begins. In the political world, a bill was proposed last year that would allow preservation orders to be issued even before hacking damage occurs. Jang Ji-woon, an attorney at Daeryun Law Firm, said, "Whether or not there was intentionality will be the key issue," and "the main issue will be whether there was intentional destruction for the purpose of destroying evidence and interfering with the investigation." Seo Jeong-bin, a lawyer at Soul Law Firm, also said, “If the purpose of (deletion) is concealment or reduction, there is a possibility of aggravated punishment.” Reporter Min Soo-jeong (crystal@mt.co.kr)[View full article] Police focus on investigation into 'suspicion of Coupang data preservation order'... “Intention is the key” (Shortcut)

The domestic construction industry's overseas expansion is dire. In the past, the main focus was plants in the Middle East, infrastructure in Asia, and urban development in Africa, but in the 2020s, the landscape is changing, with the company entering Western markets such as North America and Europe and recording orders worth US$3 billion (approximately KRW 4.4 trillion) per year. To secure competitiveness in the borderless legal service market, one must not remain within the narrow confines of the existing Overseas Construction Promotion Act and the overseas EPC (engineering, procurement, and construction) level. It is time to change the framework to provide global legal services from a macroscopic perspective that encompasses the entire project, such as investment development and urban development. Legal review from the overseas expansion and negotiation stage: Case of binding force of applicable law In overseas construction practice, applicable laws, dispute resolution methods, and contract conditions are complexly intertwined. In particular, as international standard contracts, including FIDIC (Federation Internationale Des Ingenieurs-Conseils) contract terms, are widely used, legal review from the overseas expansion and negotiation stage has become the starting point for multinational legal services. The Supreme Court's position on the application of governing law to overseas engineering contracts (2016Da222712) also clearly shows the importance of drafting contracts for design, construction, and operation. In that decision, the Supreme Court ruled that if there is a clear agreement between the parties on the choice of governing law, it must be followed. Even if the issue is closely related to domestic law, such as trade secrets, it reaffirms that the governing law clause in the contract has a strong binding force that changes the standard of trial itself. Between domestic law and international arbitration: Arbitration awards in construction disputes Disputes in the overseas construction field are commonly resolved through international arbitration institutions such as the ICC (International Arbitration Court) and SIAC (Singapore International Arbitration Center). In particular, such arbitral awards have the same effect as domestic final judgments in accordance with the New York Convention (Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards). However, the New York Convention stipulates that 'execution may be refused if it is against the public order of the enforcement country.' In addition, the court recently ruled that "'violation of public order' under the New York Convention should be interpreted in a very exceptional and limited manner" (Seoul Central District Court 2021 Kagi 2778), showing importance on the stability and predictability of international arbitral awards. This ultimately gives an important implication that the role of lawyers should be expanded to convergence experts who deeply understand and respond to construction technology and international contract practices. In the midst of the expansion of overseas expansion and the opening of the legal market, the challenges of global legal services, legal services are now positioned as a core strategic asset that determines the success or failure of a project beyond an after-the-fact means. In particular, providing multinational legal services in a timely manner in areas where Korean companies are strong, such as plants, shipbuilding, and marine structures, and designing them advantageously from the initial contract terms have value beyond the ability to win orders. To this end, we must actively consider providing legal advisory services from domestic law firms as a package when receiving overseas orders, or providing legal consulting support to developing countries in connection with international development cooperation (ODA) projects. At the same time, active support should be provided to strengthen multinational capabilities by closely cooperating with global law firms in the Americas and Europe so that our legal services can stand shoulder to shoulder with the global market. Small and Medium Business Team[View full article] [Contribution] Implications of multinational construction territory expansion and global legal services (link)

Daeryun Law Firm and SJKP File a Complaint in New York "Beomseok Kim, the person in actual control of security budget and policy" In relation to Coupang's large-scale customer information leak, a class action lawsuit was filed against not only the U.S. headquarters (Coupang Inc.) but also Chairman Beomseok Kim personally. According to the legal community on the 11th, SJKP, an American partner law firm of Daeryun Law Firm, filed a lawsuit in New York on the 6th (local time) with Coupang Inc. and Chairman Beomseok Kim as co-defendants. A class action lawsuit has been filed. This lawsuit seeks responsibility for a data leak that occurred in November 2025, and the compensation claim is more than $5 million (approximately 7.3 billion won). Regarding the reason for designating Chairman Kim as a defendant, SJKP explained, "It is not because of his position as CEO, but because he exercised actual control and decision-making authority over data security budget and policies." This is based on the legal judgment that under U.S. federal law, individual executives can be held responsible if corporate misconduct occurs due to management's approval or gross negligence in management. The complaint lists the following reasons for Chairman Kim's liability: ▲Negligence, ▲Negligence Per Se, ▲Unjust Enrichment, ▲Violation of New York State Corporation Law, and ▲Breach of Implied Contract. SJKP American lawyer Son Dong-hoo argued, "Chairman Kim neglected the establishment of a security system even though he had an obligation to protect customer information as the final decision-maker of security policy," and added, "The fact that he violated consumer protection and personal information protection laws is itself recognized as negligence." He added, "We tried to maximize the company's short-term profits by reducing the budget that should have been used to build security infrastructure out of the profits, and we judged that Chairman Kim was involved in this process and took unfair advantage." “We must set a precedent for holding CEOs accountable.” The plaintiffs in this lawsuit include New York City residents and U.S. citizens as lead plaintiffs, and all U.S. residents who suffered information leak damage are included as class members. Victims residing in Korea were set as a separate subclass. Attorney Son explained that the Korean victims' classification as a subclass was "not for compensation discrimination, but a device to procedurally protect the rights of groups with different places of residence and applicable laws." He added, "According to U.S. precedents, subgroups often receive substantially equal compensation as the representative plaintiff. There is no need to worry about disadvantage because the court reviews the reasonableness of the compensation proposal." SJKP said the purpose of this lawsuit goes beyond monetary compensation. He emphasized that it was a structural change in the company. Attorney Son said, "The goal is to bring about practical system changes, such as providing financial compensation to victims as well as providing long-term risk monitoring services and strengthening protection for minors and the elderly in particular." He continued, "The purpose of this lawsuit is to set a precedent that CEOs can take personal responsibility for security incidents so that companies recognize personal information protection as a matter of survival rather than cost reduction." Reporter Hwang Jeong-won (garden@sidae.com)[View full article] Reasons why an American law firm filed a class action lawsuit against Kim Beom-seok... “Coupang saved its security budget” (Shortcut)

Democratic Party Rep. Kwon Chil-seung and AI Association debate… “There is an urgent need for a legislative decision to eliminate legal uncertainty.” A unanimous voice from the industry and the legal community said, “A legislative decision to eliminate uncertainty is needed... a minimum track to lead innovation.” In line with the recently implemented AI Basic Act, a forum for discussion was held at the National Assembly to increase public access to justice and establish the legal status of the legal tech industry. In addition, the office of Democratic Party lawmaker Kwon Chil-seung and the Korea Artificial Intelligence Association held the 2nd seminar room of the National Assembly Building on the 9th, titled ‘People’s rights and choices in the AI era.’ In his welcoming speech, Rep. Kwon Chil-seung said, “AI technology must become a wise tool that expands human capabilities,” and emphasized, “Rather than rejecting the wave of technology, we should lead the change with expert insight.” Choi Yi-seon, policy expert at the Korea Artificial Intelligence Association, who made a presentation on the topic, said, “As of 2024, the legal service trade balance deficit has exceeded KRW 1.6 trillion,” and emphasized that the domestic legal market pointed out the crisis. Commissioner Choi Yi-seon said, “Building a ‘sovereign legal AI’ that accurately embodies the spirit of domestic law, rather than a global AI model learned based on English and American law, is the way to protect the sovereignty of the legal profession,” adding, “What is needed now is a legislative decision that lays down a minimum track so that legal tech companies can run without legal uncertainty.” In the discussion that followed, Yang Cheon-soo, a professor at Yeungnam University Law School, served as the moderator, and attorney Lee Seo-hyung of Daeryun Law Firm led the legal profession. He appeared as a representative panelist. Attorney Seo-Hyung Lee said, “With more than 70% of domestic civil lawsuits filed without lawyers for both plaintiffs and defendants in recent years, LegalTech is a key tool to increase people’s access to justice.” He also suggested, “We need a flexible regulatory design that guarantees maximum autonomy in providing simple legal information by applying the risk-based approach of the AI ​​Basic Law, and sets documents submitted to the court as high-risk areas and mandates lawyer review.” Specific demands from industry figures also continued. Elbox CEO Lee Jin called for preemptive legislation, saying, “Through RAG (Search Augmented Generation) technology, we are proving the stability of AI by dramatically reducing the hallucination phenomenon,” and Nexus AI CEO Lee Jae-won appealed for a revision of the Attorney Act, saying, “The vague provisions of the Attorney Act are blocking rational collaboration for AI development.” Meanwhile, the organizers, Democratic Party Rep. Kwon Chil-seung, Rep. Park Ji-won, and Rep. Park Hee-seung attended the debate. In addition, various experts including Kim Hyun-cheol, president of the Korea Artificial Intelligence Association, policy expert Choi Lee-seon, who gave the presentation, Lee Seo-hyung, lawyer at Daeryun Law Firm, Lee Jin, CEO of Elbox, Lee Jae-won, CEO of Nexus AI, who participated as discussants, Jeong Woo-seok, head of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Justice, and Oh Cheong-mi, director of the National Legal Information Center of the Ministry of Government Legislation, attended and held a heated discussion on the future of the legal tech industry. Reporter Jeong-heon Son, Lawleader, twson@lawleader.co.kr Lawleader - Legal balance deficit of 1.6 trillion... ‘Korean-style AI’ must be built to protect domestic legal sovereignty (Go here) Roishu - Legal balance deficit of 1.6 trillion... ‘Korean-style AI’ needs to be built to protect domestic legal sovereignty (Click here) Pinpoint News - “Gyeonggi-do will strive to promote Legal-Tech, the best place for AI” (Shortcut) Pressian - Representative Kwon Chil-seung holds a policy debate seeking the development of the legal tech industry in the AI ​​era (link) E-Newspaper - Domestic Legal Tech 'emergency situation' due to Antropic Shock... Industry: “It is urgent to enact the Legal Tech Promotion Act” (link) Shina Ilbo - Representative Kwon Chil-seung holds a legal tech policy debate (link) iNews24 - National Assembly member Kwon Chil-seung "Gyeonggi-do is the best place for AI... We will make efforts to promote legal tech" (link) Seoul Economic Daily - “Let’s end the war of attrition between the legal profession and IT”… Legaltech win-win debate at the National Assembly (link)