Press Coverage

Daeryun Law Firm announced on the 8th that it successfully completed the 'U.S. Tariff Refund and Trade Risk Response Webinar for Foreign Companies' held jointly with the Korea Foreign Companies Association (KOFA). This webinar was prepared to analyze the tariff refund process, which has recently begun in earnest following the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) was illegal, and to explore companies' preemptive trade risk response strategies. At this event, executives from foreign companies as well as managers from legal, financial, and SCM departments participated and showed great interest. In the first session, Myeong Jae-ho, a customs expert, presented as a speaker on the topic of the U.S. IEEPA tariff refund system and the latest practical trends. Commissioner Myeong explained the step-by-step application scope and practical procedures of the 'CAPE (Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries)' system, the online refund portal of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which began operation on the 20th of last month. Commissioner Myeong emphasized, "This refund is not an automatic refund according to the Supreme Court ruling, and can only be received if the official importer (IOR) applies directly through the CAPE system." He also advised that securing a financial account in the United States is essential, and that separate procedural alternatives, such as objections, should be prepared quickly to respond to cases that are not subject to application for the system. In the second session, foreign attorney Dong-hoo Son (USA) gave a lecture focusing on major issues after refunds. Attorney Son requested an approach that clearly separates the actual receipt structure of the refund and the legal attribution structure. Attorney Son pointed out, "In DDP (Duty Paid Delivery) transactions, etc., if the IOR on paper and the actual duty bearer are different, there is a risk that the refund will be paid preferentially to the entity other than the economic bearer." He continued, "To prevent such disputes, the pre-contract structure such as rights transfer and profit sharing should be closely organized and the transaction linked to Articles 301 and 232 of the Trade Act. “We also need to comprehensively examine trade risks in the future,” he emphasized. Kim Kuk-il, CEO of Daeryun Management, said, “This webinar was an opportunity to look at the practical pitfalls and structural risks that foreign companies may face in a situation where refund opportunities worth approximately $166 billion (KRW 244 trillion) are open.” He added, “I hope that in the future, companies will clearly establish who is legally attributable and secure logical consistency to prepare for the unfolding trade wave.” Eunhye Lee (zhses3@joseilbo.com)[View full article] “The path to refund 244 trillion won in U.S. tariffs has been opened”… Daeryun, Customs Refund/Trade Webinar Successfully Completed (Go here)

Kang Dong-hoon, attorney at Daeryun Law Firm, said that over the past three years, the number of cases of illegal subway riding in Seoul has reached nearly 160,000, and the amount of levies collected amounts to 7.7 billion won. This is the result of the spread of a complacent perception that regards unauthorized use of other people's preferential cards as a minor deviation or a misdemeanor. However, from the perspective of legal practice, fraudulent use is a property crime in which the risks are overwhelmingly greater than the actual benefits. This is because it is a serious illegal act that goes beyond a simple violation of terms and conditions and carries with it a high civil liability for compensation and criminal punishment. More than 80% of all illegal rides are cases of unauthorized use of discount cards belonging to family members or acquaintances. You may think that it's okay if you don't get caught on site, but the reality is different. This is because not only is the target identified by age-specific signals when passing through the ticket gate, but it is also linked to CCTV footage in real time. As a lawyer, the most difficult part to defend is computer log records. The defense that “it was brought by mistake” loses its legal effect in the face of several months of theft history remaining in the data. The primary price to be paid when illegal riding is detected is a punitive additional fare based on the Railway Business Act and Passenger Transport Terms and Conditions. You must pay an amount equivalent to 30 times the fare for the section. What is especially important is that it does not end with a one-time detection. If continuous unauthorized boarding in the past is identified through a check on boarding and disembarking history, a retroactive charge in the form of a return of unfair profits will be made for all past usage. In practice, there are frequent cases of people being forcibly executed for millions of won while trying to save a small amount of freight. Criminal liability is even more severe. The act of using paid facilities without fair compensation falls under Article 348-2 of the Criminal Act, ‘Illegal use of convenience facilities.’ If you actively deceive someone else by arbitrarily presenting their ID card, you may be charged with forgery of a private document, coexistence, and even fraud. It is a matter that can result in a fine or even a prison sentence, and it should not be overlooked that it can turn into a criminal case that leaves a criminal record rather than an administrative fine. If you are in a legal crisis due to an unexpected discovery, you must develop a practical response strategy rather than an emotional appeal. Unreasonable denial of charges in a situation where there is clear physical evidence only becomes the basis for aggravated punishment in future criminal proceedings. We accept what needs to be acknowledged, but we must consider whether the scope of the civil unjust enrichment claim is legally sound. If all past records can be analyzed to see if they were stolen and the actual violation section can be separated, fines amounting to millions of won can be significantly reduced. At the criminal stage, focus should be placed on preventing conflicting charges. A strategic response is essential to minimize charges by proving that the investigation was not habitual from the beginning or by quickly completing compensation for damages. The best defense is to logically explain the situation based on objective evidence and reach an amicable agreement so that a single mistake does not lead to lifelong stains or unbearable property losses. Reporter Jeong Ye-jin yejin0311@inews24.com[View full article] [Contribution] Tried to free ride and was withdrawn 30 times... The moment a cheating trick becomes a crime (Shortcut)

The principle of tiller-ownership of farmland (Gyeongjayujeon, 耕者有田) is now at a critical turning point. This principle, which is rooted in Article 121 of the Constitution, stipulates that those who actually farm should own farmland, and was an expression of a strong will to prevent land monopoly by minority landlords and preserve farmland as a national asset. However, as the contemporary demands of ‘strict ownership and flexible use’ collide, a new phase in which opportunities and risks coexist is unfolding. The first thing that stands out is deregulation through ‘spatial reorganization’ of farmland. The government is absorbing urban residents' demand for ‘5 degrees and 2 villages’ by introducing a ‘rural residential shelter’ system from the end of 2025 to early 2026, allowing the installation of temporary accommodation of approximately 33㎡ without a permit for exclusive use of farmland. Regulations on smart farms and vertical farms have also been greatly relaxed, making it possible to install permanent facilities on farmland if certain requirements are met. This shows that farmland is evolving beyond simple farmland into a base for high value-added technology businesses. (Article 2, Paragraph 7 of the Farmland Act) Furthermore, the release of small-scale farmland (agricultural promotion area) of less than 3ha was permitted, opening the way to converting inefficient farmland into convenience and commercial facilities. As mentioned above, while regulations on farmland use have been relaxed, ownership regulations have actually become tighter. This is something to pay attention to in the current farmland system. First, at the acquisition stage, the examination for farmland acquisition qualifications was made practical, so acquisition by outsiders and purchase of shared shares were strictly restricted, and acquisition for weekend and experiential farming purposes in agricultural promotion areas was legally blocked. In addition, in the post-acquisition management stage, a real-time monitoring network combining drones, satellites, and administrative data is operated to constantly monitor uncultivated cultivation or illegal use. In particular, the enforcement fine imposed upon detection amounts to 25% of the land value, which is so punitive that an amount equivalent to the entire land value must be paid in just four years. Attorney Kim Gwang-deok of Daeryun Law Firm said, "In the end, the current farmland market is a place where 'doors of opportunity' and 'risk traps' coexist. Distributed acquisition or reckless neglect under family names can lead to criminal punishment beyond administrative disposition." He added, "Therefore, if you are planning a farmland-related business or considering inheritance or purchase, a legal review that analyzes relaxed regulatory conditions and strengthened punishment regulations in three dimensions must be preceded. Only legal acquisition and elaborate utilization plans can secure assets. “It is the only surety check that is protected, and the answer begins with the diagnosis of an expert who accurately understands the changed legal principles.”[View full article] A great turning point in farmland regulation, practical implications of Gyeongyujeop (耕者有田) (link)

“There is an exception for car drunk driving, but it is clearly unfair not to have a kickboard.” An administrative judgment ruled that the one-year restriction on reacquiring a driver's license for a person who was caught driving an electric kickboard while drunk and paid a fine was excessive. The Central Administrative Appeals Commission imposed a fine of 100,000 won and license cancellation on Mr. A, who was caught driving an electric kickboard, a personal mobility device, while drunk in November last year. Afterwards, Mr. A He attempted to apply for a test to obtain a license again, but the Corporation did not accept the application, saying that the one-year period of disqualification had not passed. Accordingly, Mr. A filed an administrative appeal, saying that since there is an exception clause in the Road Traffic Act that states that a ‘punishment less than a fine’ is confirmed, a license can be acquired even during the period of disqualification, the fine should be viewed with the same purpose. However, the Corporation maintained its position that the fine is not a punishment under the Criminal Act and therefore is not subject to an exception. The idea is that even if a fine is paid, the period of disqualification should still be applied. However, the Public Conduct Commission accepted Mr. A’s argument. The committee said, “Compared to drunk driving of a car or motorcycle, the reason for requiring payment of fines, detention, fines, etc. for drunk driving of a personal mobility device is to impose a light punishment because the risk is considered to be relatively low,” and added, “There is an exception rule that exempts the disqualification period for drunk driving of a car or motorcycle, which is more dangerous, but the absence of related regulations for kickboards is a clear legislative insufficiency.” It continued, “A person who meets and pays the fine cannot get a license right away, and conversely, he cannot meet the requirements. “If a person who has been criminally punished or refused to pay a fine and received a summary judgment can obtain a license, this is completely against the purpose of the system,” he explained, adding, “It is a contradictory situation in which only those who have paid the fine are disadvantaged.” Attorney Byeon Gwan-hoon of the Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. “A deformed situation arises where a summary judgment is requested and punishment is induced,” he said. “We were able to obtain the cancellation of the disposition by actively demonstrating that it was a serious problem that ignores the legislative purpose of the penalty system, which is to reduce unnecessary judicial waste.” The Central Administrative Appeals Committee was established to hear and decide on judgment requests filed against the disposition or omission of central administrative agencies, special cities, metropolitan cities, provinces, and special local administrative agencies affiliated with the central administrative agency. It is a specialized administrative trial organization under the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission of the Republic of Korea. Meanwhile, accidents with drunk electric kickboards occur every year. In 2024, Mr. B was caught by the police after crashing into an SUV while driving an electric kickboard while drinking at an intersection in Songdo International City, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, after violating a traffic signal. At the time of the accident, Mr. B's blood alcohol content was found to be above 0.08%, which is the level for license cancellation. Also, at around 8 pm on August 31, 2025, a vehicle traveling straight on a road near an underpass in Deoki-dong, Ilsanseo-gu, Goyang-si, and Mr. C, a man in his 20s who was driving on an electric kickboard on a crosswalk while drunk, collided. Immediately after the accident, Mr. C fled the scene, and the police caught him at his residence. It was reported that Mr. C's blood alcohol level was at a level that would have resulted in his license being revoked. Reporter Seo Da-hee happiness@kyeonggi.com[View full article] “If you have paid the fine for drinking on a kickboard, you can apply for a license immediately”... Public Conduct Commission points out ‘lack of legislation’ (link)

After a safety accident occurred, an office worker who was sued for insult and defamation after claiming that “managers showed inappropriate behavior in the chat room” of an in-house group was cleared of the charges by the police. This is because the police judged that the article had a public purpose and the level of criticism was mild. According to the legal community on the 7th, the Asan Police Station in South Chungcheong Province decided not to forward Mr. A, who was booked on charges of insult and defamation in March. Mr. A was accused of posting a post defaming managers in the company's business group chat room in September of last year. At the time, Mr. A claimed through the article that some managers showed inappropriate attitudes by laughing and talking even though a fatal accident occurred within the company. Mr. A acknowledged that he wrote the article, but explained that it was not intended to slander. Mr. A's claim was that he wrote the article to raise an issue because he thought the safety insensitivity at the site was serious. The police decided not to forward the case after finding that there were no charges of insult or defamation. In relation to the charge of insult, the police determined that even if mild profanity or abstract expressions were used while expressing negative or critical opinions or feelings about the other person, it cannot be considered an expression that could infringe on external reputation unless there are special circumstances. In relation to defamation, since Mr. A claims that he heard about the actions of the managers and truly believed them, and that it was for the purpose of informing employees, it cannot be ruled out that there was a public purpose, so it was considered illegal. Lawyer Kim Hyun-soo of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, “Defamation and “In order to constitute a crime of insult, it is necessary to use expressions that are intended to slander and lower social evaluations. The post was intended to point out chronic insensitivity to safety, and the public interest was the main purpose, and the decision to not forward the case was made by emphasizing that the expression was also mild,” he explained. Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] “There was a safety accident, but the attitude was inappropriate”… Employee accused of criticizing manager cleared of charges (link)

-Son Dong-hoo, American lawyer Daeryun, Law Firm (Limited) Legal Column Amid continued exchange rate volatility and global uncertainty, the number of cases of transferring or dispersing assets overseas is increasing. In particular, as the number of cases of managing residence and assets together while traveling between Korea and the United States increases, there are many cases where unexpected variables are encountered and difficulties are expressed. The success or failure of asset transfer depends on the ‘process’ of moving it rather than the asset itself. This is why it is most important to check the risks of each process in advance. The first thing to check when transferring assets of a dual resident is 'legal status'. Korean tax law considers individuals domiciled in the country or staying there for more than 183 days as residents, while the United States considers not only citizens or permanent residents as residents, but also those who meet the Substantial Presence Test. In this way, if the standards of the two countries conflict, a person may be classified as a dual resident, and a complex situation arises in which the country of final residence must be determined according to the tie-breaker rule of the Korea-US tax treaty. In this case, even for the same assets, the tax scope and reporting obligations vary depending on which country the person is recognized as a resident of. There are many cases where one asset is evaluated by different standards in Korea and the United States due to the complex effects of the family's residence, location of assets, and center of economic activity. In addition, an important variable is the 'time of asset disposal'. Depending on when you sell your Korean assets before or after moving to the U.S., tax consequences can vary greatly. If a disposition is made after a change in resident status, the tax burden may increase larger than expected as the standards of both countries are applied simultaneously. In particular, in the case of selling Korean assets as a U.S. resident, the existing tax exemption for one home per household may be limited, which may lead to a substantial tax bomb. Restrictions at the physical 'procedure stage' should also be careful. For overseas residents, it is not easy to access the domestic administrative system, so there are many cases where the process is delayed from the initial stage due to restrictions on mobile phone authentication and problems with submitting original documents. However, these administrative restrictions can be largely resolved by representing the case through a lawyer. This is because business can be carried out without physical presence by submitting documents based on a power of attorney, registering real estate, and acting as an agent for financial procedures. However, what needs to be prepared for more fundamentally than these superficial administrative procedures is the gradually strengthening 'global regulatory risk'. Recently, as both Korea and the United States have strengthened management standards for asset holding and movement, 'transparent reporting' in the process, beyond simply moving assets, has emerged as a key issue. Typically, in the United States, Foreign Financial Account Reporting (FBAR) is applied. Reporting obligations arise when the total balance of overseas financial accounts exceeds $10,000, and failure to comply can result in significant sanctions. In Korea, there is also a trend to expand management targets beyond simple accounts to include trust structures, such as the introduction of the obligation to report overseas trust assets. Ultimately, the core of the response strategy is to operate an integrated risk management system based on 'cross-border capabilities' that penetrate domestically and internationally. This is because asset transfer does not end with domestic disposal, but is followed like a shadow by subsequent procedures such as tax reporting in the United States (FATCA) and explanation of foreign exchange transactions. In an environment where one asset is judged simultaneously in the legal systems of two countries, domestic practice and overseas local response must be organically connected without being segmented. Therefore, the professional capabilities of a law firm that can comprehensively carry out everything from administrative representation in Korea to local legal response in the United States within one fence is now a necessity, not an option. In an asset management environment where borders between borders have disappeared, preemptive response through this cross-border infrastructure is the only way to fully preserve asset value. Reporter Lee Dong-oh (canon35@mt.co.kr)[View full article] Where is the movement of assets of dual residents blocked? What is the conflict between Korea and the US standards and what is the response strategy? (Shortcut)

When it comes to corporate management, news of a business partner's rehabilitation or bankruptcy filing is not just bad news, it is a fatal risk that can lead to a series of bankruptcies for the company. As a lawyer, I am currently helping numerous companies respond to bankruptcy crises, but I often remember the unfortunate case of a small business going bankrupt with surplus money that I encountered 10 years ago when I was working as a corporate bankruptcy trustee in Uijeongbu. The company did not report its claims on time even after recognizing that the client had entered corporate rehabilitation procedures, and eventually had to face the disastrous result of being kicked out of the market without recovering a single penny. This is a point of deep regret that the worst phase of serial bankruptcies could have been avoided if the bond report had been completed within the golden time and some of the funds had been recovered within the rehabilitation process. The first thing that creditors must keep an eye on in order to protect their rights in the corporate rehabilitation process is the short 'claim report period' of about two weeks to one month designated by the court along with the decision to commence. If the court approves the rehabilitation plan without reporting proper claims within this period, the claims will permanently lose effect in accordance with Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act. Of course, there is an exception (Article 151 of the same Act) where the claims are considered to have been reported on time if they are reflected in the list of creditors submitted by the court-appointed administrator. However, in practice, only part of the amount of the claim is often recorded or omitted altogether, and unless the creditor directly comes forward and reports the difference, there is a fatal limitation that the right will inevitably be dissolved. Even if a claim is reported in a timely manner, it can be reflected in the rehabilitation plan only after passing a rigorous claim provision/denial process, so strict compliance with the deadline is a prerequisite for all responses. Of course, in order to provide relief to creditors who missed the reporting period, a supplementary reporting system has been established in the future under Article 152 of the Debtors' Rehabilitation Act, etc., but recovering rights through this is by no means easy. In principle, even such future supplementary reporting is restricted after the 'assembly of interested parties for the hearing of the rehabilitation plan' is over. However, through Supreme Court precedents (2011G256, etc.), the legal principle that "if the administrator knew or could have easily known the existence of the rehabilitation claim but did not enter it in the list of rehabilitation creditors, the administrator will not be forfeited as an exception and a supplementary report can be filed later within one month from the date of learning of the rehabilitation procedure" has been established, which has expanded the scope of relief. There is also a precedent (2006Da77197) that states that relief can be obtained through a performance action even after the rehabilitation procedure is completed. However, the essential risk that companies must face here is that the burden of proof to prove the manager's 'intention or gross negligence (knowledge or could easily have known)' lies entirely with the creditors. In practice, it is an area of ​​judicial uncertainty that is extremely difficult for creditors who have difficulty accessing internal information to explain each and every one of them with objective legal evidence. Ultimately, in the face of a business partner's bankruptcy risk, 'vague wait-and-see' or 'arbitrary judgments based on Internet information' are prohibited, and preemptive and thorough legal response within Golden Time is the only solution. In particular, in order to overcome the latest practical trends of the competent court and the threshold of strict bond investigation procedures, it is necessary to avoid an after-the-fact response and design a systematic defense logic from the beginning of the case. In the face of a major crisis where the survival of the company is at stake, the most reliable response will be to appoint a rehabilitation lawyer who is familiar with the relevant local practice more than anything else. Help: Attorney Seong-moon Choi of Daeryun Law Firm[View full article] Guide to preventing forfeiture of bonds during rehabilitation procedures according to experts (link)

Customized legal education and counseling for disabled business representatives and prospective entrepreneurs. Practical support received favorable reviews... Expected to continue expanding the support program for disabled businesses. 'Kinyeonbeop', established by Daeryun Law Firm, announced on the 4th that it successfully completed the 'Legal Support Day for Disabled Businesses' event together with the Disabled Business Support Center. This event, held on the 25th of last month in the main lecture room of the Disabled Business Support Center in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, addressed the legal difficulties of disabled businesses. It was planned to resolve the issue and create a stable management environment. On this day, corporate officials from various industries such as manufacturing, distribution, and service industries attended, adding to the excitement. The first part of the lecture was given by attorney Shin Jong-su of Daeryun Law Firm. Attorney Shin is a veteran with high achievements in the field of corporate mergers and acquisitions and tax disputes. At this event, he received a great response by explaining key provisions that must be checked when signing a contract and immediate legal response strategies needed when uncollectibles are incurred. In the second part of the lecture, lawyer Kyung-won Yoon, a former prosecutor, appeared. Attorney Yoon is an expert who has worked at the prosecution for over 20 years and has handled a variety of cases, including corporate criminal affairs, tax and economic crimes, and international legal affairs. In the lecture that day, practical legal risks such as transaction fraud and trademark theft, to which small businesses are easily exposed, were pointed out in depth. After the lecture, a one-on-one customized legal consultation session with a professional lawyer was provided. Participants were offered practical solutions to specific issues encountered in actual business settings, such as reorganizing personnel and labor systems and reviewing contracts. In the satisfaction survey conducted after the event, there were many positive evaluations, such as “There were many practical tips that can be immediately applied in the field,” and “I hope that related programs will continue to expand.” Park Maru, chairman of the Comprehensive Support Center for Businesses for the Disabled, said, “Even though businesses with disabilities have high growth potential, they often face difficulties due to lack of access to legal information.” He added, “We hope that this cooperation will be a strong starting point to reduce uncertainty in business operation and help stable growth.” Kim Kuk-il, CEO of Daeryun Law Firm, said, “We planned this event with the intention of realizing the precious relationships between people for the public good within the bounds of the law,” and added, “We will expand legal support and social contribution activities so that companies with disabilities can enjoy their legal rights without discrimination.” Meanwhile, Relationship Law, a public interest corporation established to protect the socially underprivileged and the underprivileged, is continuously carrying out various social contribution projects. [Reporter Son Jeong-heon, Lawleader] twson@lawleader.co.kr][View full article] Incorporated Association, ‘Legal Support Day for Businesses with Disabilities’ successfully concluded (Go here)

Held jointly with KOFA on the 7th and presented by customs experts and lawyers, “Open a practical path for refunds for importers.” The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) recently officially launched the online Customs Refund Portal (CAPE) and the refund process worth about KRW 244 trillion (USD 166 billion) is in full swing. A webinar will be held to diagnose changes in the global trade environment and strengthen the practical response of foreign companies. Daeryun Law Firm It was announced on the 4th that in collaboration with the Korea Foreign Companies Association (KOFA), a webinar on 'U.S. tariff refund and trade risk response for companies' will be held at 3 p.m. on the 7th. The event was planned to go beyond simple refund application process guidance and support the establishment of preemptive governance in preparation for complex legal and contractual issues that may appear after refund and strong trade pressure from the United States. At the event, Daeryun experts with outstanding expertise in customs and global corporate legal affairs will directly participate as speakers. In the first part of the event, which is divided into two sessions, Myung Jae-ho, customs expert, will give a lecture on the topic of ‘U.S. IEEPA tariff refund system and latest practical trends.’ Commissioner Myeong is a veteran who has overseen trade review and FTA (Free Trade Agreement) consulting work at major organizations and companies such as Hyundai Express and Korea Origin Information Service. Based on his solid network with related organizations such as the Korea Customs Service, he plans to present various administrative difficulties that companies may experience during the refund process and customs review response strategies. In Part 2, U.S. attorney Dong-Hoo Son will present on the topic of ‘Issues after refund: Official importer structure, refund attribution, and subsequent trade risks.’ Attorney Son is considered an investment and corporate legal expert who has successfully completed numerous cross-border projects, including advising global pharmaceutical companies on their entry into the U.S. market. In this lecture, he will explain that the opening of CBP's online portal is a practical follow-up to the unconstitutional decision made by the U.S. Federal Court in February, and is expected to analyze and present specific scenarios that foreign companies will face. It mainly addresses sensitive issues such as △the scope of phased application of the CBP CAPE refund system, △response to disputes surrounding the settlement of refunds between headquarters and corporations, and △follow-up response plans for cases excluding CAPE application. This event can be attended by any working-level managers in related departments such as HR (human resources), legal affairs, finance, purchasing, SCM (supply chain management), and logistics, as well as executives of foreign companies. Applications for attendance and confirmation of detailed information can be made through the Daeryun Law Firm website. Kim Kuk-il, CEO of Daeryun Law Firm, emphasized, “With the launch of CBP’s portal, a path has been opened for importers who paid the so-called Trump tariffs to receive a substantial refund. However, the essence that companies should pay attention to is not simply whether or not they will receive a refund, but to clearly establish who the refund legally belongs to and ensure logical consistency of trade risks that will develop in the future.” Kim Jin-ryong Reporter (kim.jinryong@mk.co.kr)[View full article] Daeryun holds seminar on US tariff refund and trade risk response (Go here)

Daeryun Law Firm announced on the 4th that it signed an MOU with Humanworks, a leading digital content and e-commerce company, to provide corporate legal advice and strengthen global capabilities. The agreement ceremony held at the headquarters of Human Works Co., Ltd. on the 27th of last month was attended by key officials from both companies, including CEO Daeryun Kim Kuk-il, lawyers Kim Min-soo and Jeong Hong-cheol, Human Works CEO Park Min-gyu, general manager Kim Hyung-kwang, and team leader Kim Hyun-gu. Established in 2006, Humanworks is an IT company that supplies its high-quality HTML5 games to global big tech platforms such as Samsung, MSN, and Facebook. In addition, it is leading domestic technology trends by operating IT specialized shopping mall ‘App Story Mall’, smart small home appliance brand FIX, and membership ticket reservation platform Casting. Through this agreement, the two companies plan to preemptively prevent copyright disputes that may arise in overseas markets and strongly protect their core IP in line with the global expansion of Humanworks' HTML5-based gamification business. Specific details of cooperation include △review of multinational platform publishing contracts and establishment of customized IP protection strategies for each country, △consulting on game content rating classification and response to IT-related regulations, △customized legal advice for all business areas, including data compliance related to the newly established AX (AI Transformation) Research Institute, and △support for legal consulting services for executives and employees. Park Min-gyu, CEO of Humanworks, said, “Domestic IT companies often face unexpected IP disputes or local regulations in the process of expanding into the global market,” and added, “Based on the legal system of large law firms and global networks such as New York, we expect that this will be a great help to Humanworks’ sustainable growth.” CEO of Daeryun Kim Kook-il said, “We are happy to be a reliable legal partner of Humanworks, which is achieving remarkable results on the global stage. We will mobilize our IP specialist group and global legal capabilities to overcome the regulatory wall faced by IT companies and build a stable legal environment where executives and employees can focus only on their work.” Meanwhile, Daeryun is accelerating the expansion of cross-border legal services connecting domestically and internationally by opening an office in New York, USA last year and solidifying its collaboration system with local patent law firms, and plans to further strengthen its expertise in the IT and content fields through this agreement.[View full article] Daeryun Law Firm, MOU with Human Works… “Strengthening global IP protection and legal advice” (link)