Press Coverage

An opportunity will be provided to analyze in-depth the patent disputes and personnel and labor issues that heated up the pharmaceutical and bio industries last year and to explore corporate response strategies to the changing regulatory environment. Daeryun Law Firm announced on the 15th that it will hold a webinar (online seminar) '2025 Pharmaceutical and Bio Sector Settlement - Medical, Bio and Healthcare Group Seminar' on the 28th. The lecturer will be attorney Lee Il-hyung, head of Daeryun Pharmaceutical Bio Healthcare Center. This lawyer, who holds a pharmacist's license, is an expert with extensive litigation experience, ranging from pharmaceutical patent disputes to healthcare regulatory response and legal advice. The webinar largely consists of analyzing precedents and examining major laws and regulations in the pharmaceutical and bio fields of last year. In particular, attorney Lee Il-hyung personally carries out cases and delivers practical implications focusing on major precedents in which legal principles were argued. First, through the '13-valent pneumococcal vaccine ruling', we look in detail at the latest issues in the patent field, such as ▲whether the production of semi-finished products constitutes patent infringement (direct infringement) ▲the principle of territoriality and the meaning of domestic production ▲the scope of application of exceptions to experimental implementation (research purposes) under the Patent Act. Next, we analyze rulings related to illegal dispatch, a chronic risk in the pharmaceutical industry, from a human resources and labor perspective. The key issue is whether compliance with the main contractor's standard operating instructions (SOP) can be viewed as actual command and order. Attorney Lee plans to explain the criteria for judging illegal dispatch based on relevant precedents and present specific risk management measures for the operation of subcontractors in the pharmaceutical and bio industry. Lastly, we plan to examine changes in major laws and regulations, such as the 'Digital Medical Products Act' that has been in effect since last year, and share compliance points that companies should not miss and practical countermeasures. Daeryun Kim Kook-il, CEO of Management, said, "Patents, regulations, and employment structures are intertwined in the biopharmaceutical industry, so even a single ruling can have a significant impact on corporate management. Through this webinar, it will be an opportunity to obtain practical risk management solutions that can be immediately applied to the field based on the perspective of lawyer Lee, who has personally handled related cases." This webinar will be held online, and you can apply for participation on Daeryun Law Firm’s official website. Applicants will be separately notified of the access link.[View full article] Medipana - Daeryun Law Firm holds a webinar on ‘2025 Pharmaceutical and Bio Settlement’ on the 28th (Go here) International News - Daeryun holds ‘2025 Pharmaceutical/Bio Settlement’ webinar… “Summary of key precedents” (Shortcut)

Intensive inspection of high-impact AI regulations and liability structures ahead of the implementation of the AI Basic Act Sharing customized response strategies for businesses for management, legal affairs, and development practitioners Daeryun Law Firm announced that it will hold the ‘AI Basic Act: Corporate Response Strategy Seminar’ at Daeryun Yeouido Main Office at 2 p.m. on the 29th. This seminar will be held jointly with the Korea Artificial Intelligence Association, and will be held in conjunction with the Korea Artificial Intelligence Association to inspect the regulatory environment changes and legal liability structures that companies will face ahead of the implementation of the AI Basic Act and share practical response strategies. It has been prepared. The AI Basic Act, which will take effect on the 22nd, aims to establish a legal basis for the development and use of artificial intelligence technology, and in particular, the key point is to impose an obligation to secure safety and reliability for ‘high-impact AI’ systems that can have a significant impact on human life or basic rights. The seminar consists of a total of three sessions. Lee Seon Choi, CEO of Daeryun Law Firm, who presented the first session, is an AI compliance expert and has practical experience in directly planning, producing, and applying the ‘Daeryun AI’ legal review system, a vertical AI specialized in the legal tech area. Based on this, he plans to point out the regulations and legal responsibility structures that companies must consider in the process of introducing AI, and further look at ways to maximize corporate profits by practically utilizing AI in management. The second session presentation will be delivered by attorney Nam Kwon-yul. Attorney Nam plans to explain the obligations and implementation plans for securing transparency, safety, and accountability related to high-impact AI, based on his experience participating in multi-disciplinary regulatory improvement work, such as reviewing the bill on the promotion and use of the legal technology industry while working at the Office for Government Policy Coordination. Lastly, Attorney Ji Min-hee, who has served as a legal advisor to startups and a member of the Blockchain Law Society, will share the application and management plan of basic AI laws that can be used within each company, focusing on practical issues that arise in the process of introducing AI technology. It is a plan. Cho Young-gon, head of Daeryun AI and Data Intelligence Group, said, “Ahead of the implementation of the Basic AI Act, companies are facing uncertainty about the scope and responsibility of high-impact AI.” He added, “This seminar focused on presenting response strategies that can be applied to actual corporate practice beyond explaining the provisions of the law.” This seminar will be held simultaneously online and offline, and participation can be applied for on the Daeryun website. jckim99@sportsseoul.comReporter Kim Jong-cheol[View full article] Sports Seoul - Korea Artificial Intelligence Association and Daeryun Law Firm hold a seminar on strategies to respond to the ‘Basic AI Act’ (Go here) Gyeonggi Ilbo - Daeryun Law Firm holds ‘AI Basic Law Corporate Response Strategy Seminar’ (Go here)

All-round cooperation including labor, taxation, M&A, etc. Acceleration of expansion of global legal services - Daeryun “We will become legal partners for companies entering Vietnam together with local top-level law firms” Daeryun Law Firm announced on the 13th that it has signed an MOU (business agreement) with Vietnamese law firm Phuoc & Partners and decided to join forces to expand global legal services and strengthen support for companies in both countries. The signing ceremony was held virtually at Daeryun’s Gangnam branch office on the 6th, with Daeryun CEO Kim Kuk-il, attorney Yoon Kyeong-won, and consultant Jang Jin-eol. Partner attorney Ngo Thi Kim Trinh and attorney Nguyen Tan Qui of Phuoc & Partners attended. Phuoc & Partners is an independent law firm headquartered in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam and operating branches in Hanoi and Da Nang, providing integrated legal services to multinational companies and public institutions based on more than 20 years of expertise. In particular, in the fields of labor law, taxation, and litigation, it has been recognized as Vietnam's top law firm by international rating agencies such as Legal 500 and Asialaw, and has established a solid position in the local legal market. Through the signing of this MOU, the two companies plan to provide professional global legal solutions to both domestic companies entering Vietnam and Vietnamese companies wishing to invest in Korea. Specifically, ▲ legal advice on labor law and employment for companies investing and entering Vietnam ▲ tax structure design and tax risk management. We plan to closely cooperate in various fields, including advisory ▲M&A and investment advisory between Korea and Vietnam ▲joint response to commercial litigation and international arbitration ▲cooperation in intellectual property protection and debt collection. Ngo Thi Kim Trinh, partner lawyer at Phuoc & Partners, said, "It is meaningful to cooperate with Daeryun at a time when exchanges between Korean and Vietnamese companies are becoming more active," and added, "We will create practical results through the cross-border cooperation model between the two companies." “We expect this,” said Kim Kook-il, CEO of Daeryun Management, who said, “We are happy to have this great opportunity to form a cooperative relationship with Phuoc & Partners, a top-level law firm in Vietnam. Based on Daeryun’s unique total legal service model and AI technology, we will become a reliable legal partner for companies entering Vietnam.” Meanwhile, Daeryun is continuously expanding its global network by advancing into major overseas countries such as the United States and Japan. Based on close partnerships with local law firms and companies, we plan to provide companies with customized legal solutions optimized for the global business environment. Reporter Cheon Ju-young (young1997@mydaily.co.kr)[View full article] My Daily - Daeryun and Vietnam’s Phuoc & Partners sign business agreement “Korea-Vietnam cross-border legal support” (link) Law Leader - Daeryun-Vietnam Phuoc & Partners MOU···“Korea-Vietnam Cross Border Legal Support” (link)

The proportion of digital sex crimes is increasing. According to statistics from the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family and the Korea Institute of Criminology and Legal Policy on the 13th, the proportion of digital sex crimes among all sex crimes has nearly tripled in four years, from 8.3% in 2019 to 24% in 2023. Since the N Room incident, digital sex crimes have been evolving more secretly and sophisticatedly. Recently, the existence of ‘AVMOV’, an illegal video distribution site, has been reported in the media and is causing social repercussions. AVMOV has been distributing large quantities of illegally filmed videos of family members, lovers, and other acquaintances, and it has been revealed that the number of subscribers is more than 500,000. Since the reports surrounding AVMOV, questions surrounding related punishments have been popping up one after another on the Internet. Most people react with anxiety, wondering if they could be subject to punishment just by accessing the site. In relation to this, attorney Kim In-won of Daeryun Law Firm said, “Recently, investigative agencies are tracking not only operators but also simple users through overseas cooperation and digital forensics.” He added, “Especially in cases where child and adolescent sexual exploitation material is mixed, such as in the AVMOV case, it is highly likely that the excuses of ‘I saw it without knowing’ or ‘I did not download it’ will not work, so legal response is required from the beginning of the investigation. “It is essential,” he advised. The following is a Q&A with Attorney Kim - Will I be punished for simply watching streaming on AVMOV without payment or downloading? ▲ In principle, I am subject to punishment. In accordance with Article 14, Paragraph 4 of the Sexual Violence Punishment Act, a person who possesses, purchases, stores, or watches illegally filmed material may be subject to imprisonment for up to 3 years or a fine of up to 30 million won. If the target of the illegal filming is a child or adolescent under the age of 19, he or she may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of more than 1 year in accordance with Article 11, Paragraph 5 of the Act on the Sexual Protection of Children and Adolescents. In the past, possession of files was important, but with the revision of the law, the act of watching streaming itself is now defined as a crime. In particular, if it was possible to guess that it was an illegal video through the thumbnail or title, it would be difficult to avoid punishment as ‘intentional failure to write’ was recognized. - I accessed the site quite a lot, can I reduce my sentence if I turn myself in? ▲Embroidery is a ‘double-edged sword.’ Voluntary reporting before becoming aware of the investigative agency can be a favorable sentencing factor that can lead to leniency as a sign of reflection. If you are a person involved in the operation or have uploaded something, this can be a strategy to avoid arrest. It is safe to turn yourself in after consulting with a lawyer. -What is the primary criterion for being subject to an AVMOV investigation? ▲ Investigative agencies are given priority because they must investigate a large number of connected users with limited manpower. Site operators, distributors, payers, and bulk downloaders are the top targets. In particular, paid payment details serve as evidence proving ‘provision of criminal proceeds’ and ‘clear intent.’ However, even if you are a free member, there is a possibility that you will be subject to investigation if you have a high number of connections or if logs of repeated viewing of a specific subtitle are confirmed. -Formatting your mobile phone or hard disk when a police investigation begins is absolutely prohibited. Physically destroying a hard disk or hastily deleting data is regarded by investigative agencies as an attempt to ‘destroy evidence’ and becomes a decisive reason for issuing an arrest warrant. Recent forensic technology can even restore log records of deleted data. Rather, it is wise to immediately stop accessing and prepare objective sentencing materials through a lawyer to prove the circumstances of one's access and lack of intention. - How should one respond if one has been wrongfully implicated in the AVMOV case? ▲Digital sex crimes are a battle to prove ‘intention.’ If a pop-up window appears due to accidentally clicking on a banner while surfing the web, or if viewing history is left behind due to auto-play, this must be explained technically. However, in this case of AVMOV, the ‘login’ process is essential to watch the video, so it is highly likely that the investigative agency will judge this to be an intentional act. Therefore, rather than blindly denying the charges, an active legal defense is needed, such as receiving assistance from forensic experts and lawyers and submitting log analysis data to prove that the access in question was temporary or unintentional. Reporter Kwon Byeong-seok (bsk730@fnnews.com)[View full article] You can be punished just for accessing... For investigation response related to AVMOV (Go here)

last year 11month 29Day '3370Personal information leak incident'As pressure from the government and political circles continues to surround Coupang, which announced. The Fair Trade Commission is conducting multiple investigations regarding suspicions of unfair practices by Coupang., Beomseok Kim CoupangInc chairman's 'Whether the same person is designated'He said he would review it until. last year 12month 31At a joint hearing on the Coupang incident held on Sunday, Fair Trade Commission Chairman Joo Byeong-ki said, "next year 5When judging the month (Chairman Kim’s designation of the same person) I will look at it closely."as "Even if the same person is designated, practical punishment is weak, so we will review supplementary measures."He said.'same person(同一人)'A business group under the Fair Trade Act, so-called 'zaibatsu'the actual ruler of(count)means. Designating a specific individual as a ruler, such as Samsung Electronics Chairman Lee Jae-yong or Hyundai Motor Group Chairman Eui-sun Chung, 'natural person' method and, If the total number is unclear 'corporation' It is divided into ways of specifying itself.. Is it possible to designate the head of the Fair Trade Commission last year? 5The same person of Coupang was not the founder, Chairman Kim Beom-seok. 'corporation'designated as. At the time, whether the controlling natural person invested in a domestic affiliate, which was an exception for the same person under the Enforcement Decree of Coupang,, Relatives are prohibited from participating in management., This is because it is judged that all requirements for debt guarantees and fund loans between natural persons and relatives and domestic affiliates have been met..However, due to the personal information leakage incident, the domestic distribution industry 1As the inside story of Coupang’s management was revealed, the situation changed.. In particular, when it became known that Vice President Kim Yu-seok, the younger brother of Chairman Kim Beom-seok, received a large amount of compensation while working at Coupang. 'Whether relatives participate in management'As it rises to the surface of the water. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission(SEC) According to submitted materials, etc., Vice President Kim 2021since 2024Cash and stock subject to transfer restrictions until 2018(RSU) As an incentive in the form of approximately 140It was confirmed that he received compensation worth billions of won.. If a relative is judged to have served as an executive or participated in management, Coupang will be exempt from the exception requirement that allows the same person to be designated as a corporation..Vice President Kim will decide whether to designate the same person. 'smoking gun'As it emerged, the ruling party's offensive targeting it also intensified.. previous year 12month 30At a joint hearing on Coupang, Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Young-bae said of Vice President Kim: "Isn't it strange that they are paid this much even though they are not executives?"I asked back. The next day, Rep. Kim Hyeon of the same party also "Vice President Kim of Coupang '3factor' Isn't it?"as "It is difficult to view him as a simple employee."pointed out.According to this, 5Attention is focused on the results of the Fair Trade Commission's designation of business groups subject to disclosure, scheduled for this month.. According to the Fair Trade Act, the Fair Trade Commission maintains a certain amount of total assets each year.(5More than trillion won)Designates a business group that corresponds to the group and effectively controls the group. 'same person(count)'Also announced.At this time, if the founder, Chairman Kim Beom-seok, is designated as the same person,, Coupang will be subject to additional regulations under the Fair Trade Act, including the obligation to disclose relatives' transactions, holding company regulations, and voting rights restrictions.. Junwoo Park, head of the Fair Trade Team at One Law Firm, said: "The economic activities of Chairman Kim's family members may be restricted., Companies run by relatives are also likely to be included as related persons."said. Son Dong-hoo, who is leading a class action lawsuit for Coupang personal information leak victims in the United States. SJKP(Daeryun Law Firm USA Corporation) New York lawyer "In the case of U.S. listed companies, designation of the same person may be perceived as a factor that increases governance risk from the perspective of global investors."He emphasized.For this reason, whether or not to designate the same person is considered one of the issues that global companies are reluctant to issue.. A representative example is the designation of the same person by Lee Hae-jin, chairman of Naver’s board of directors.. Naver founder and Chairman Lee Hae-jin is ahead of the Fair Trade Commission's designation as a business group subject to disclosure., myself 'same person' We have requested an exception from the designation.. My share 4% low inside and out 'CEO of a conglomerate'They cited reasons such as the fact that business could suffer if the image of “Ran” is highlighted.. However, the Fair Trade Commission designated Chairman Lee as the same person based on his dominance as the founder of Naver and the existence of a related company..However, given that Coupang is a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange, questions are raised as to whether the same person system can actually work.. Lawyer Son "In the United States, there is no single person system in place to designate a specific individual in advance as the person responsible for regulating a business group."as "Korea's logic of designating the same person can be perceived as a way to excessively place individuals at the center of regulation from the perspective of U.S. law."explained.Regarding Vice President Kim Yoo-seok's actual participation in management, "Direct involvement in personnel, financial, and business decisions of Korean affiliates, and documentation to support such intervention., instruction, There must be clear evidence of a contractual relationship or ongoing decision-making involvement"said.Korea Coupang is a company, Now it's Coupang's 'press window'On the In Newsroom website: 'We would like to inform you about false rumors about Coupang.'The article titled 2019year 7month 17It is posted in chronological order. In the article, Coupang described itself as 'A proud Korean company'It is called "Founded and grown in Korea, Most of our business is operated within Korea."He said.However, it has been pointed out that Coupang's response to this personal information leak is quite different from the past.. last year 12month 10Il Coupang is an American, Harold Rogers, as the successor to Park Dae-jun, CEO of Coupang Co., Ltd., a Korean corporation.(Harold Rogers)sit down and, the scale of the leak 3370not ten thousand 3000The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission reported the results of its own investigation, which it said was a case, without consultation with the Korean government.(SEC)It was first announced in.Hwang Yong-sik, professor of business administration at Sejong University, "so-called 'black haired alien'There is bound to be criticism that this is a structure in the country that only profits and takes no responsibility."as "Even in the movement to designate the same person, there is an underlying recognition that it is necessary to demand responsible management."pointed out.On the other hand, there are also skeptical views about the effectiveness of the same person system.. Hwang Lee, a professor at Korea University Law School, "The core value of the same-person system lies in regulating private gain., Even if they are not the same person, anyone with actual control can cause a problem of misappropriation of private interests."as "A separate legal framework is needed to institutionally recognize and regulate business groups."suggested.Reporter Gong Gong-kyung by_jk@chosun.com [View full article] Fair Trade Commission "We will consider designating the same person"... Will Coupang’s Kim Beom-seok become the ‘head of a conglomerate’? (Shortcut)

He was accused of issuing a false medical certificate even though there was no 'alveolar bone grafting'. Law: "We must take into account the nature of the treatment within the hospital... We cannot rule out that it is an auxiliary material." A dentist who was put on trial for aiding and abetting insurance money fraud by issuing false medical certificates during the implant surgery process was acquitted in the first trial. The Ulsan District Court in November last year found dentist A, who was indicted on charges of violating the Special Act on Prevention of Insurance Fraud and writing a false medical certificate, not guilty. Mr. A is accused of aiding and abetting seven patients to swindle 13.8 million won worth of insurance money from insurance companies by issuing false medical certificates as if he had also performed 'alveolar bone grafting' even though he only performed implant surgery on the patients. The prosecution determined that no actual transplant surgery took place, citing the fact that the bone graft product sticker attached to the confiscated medical records had already been used on other patients or had expired. Mr. A completely denied the charges. It is argued that the error in the medical record was only an administrative error, and that the actual surgery was performed normally. Mr. A countered, saying, “The implant used in the hospital is a ‘wedge-shaped’ product, not a typical screw type,” and “This method necessarily involves a bone grafting process to fill the gap by collecting the autologous alveolar bone generated during the implant placement process.” The court ruled in Mr. A’s favor. The court explained, "The fact that there are duplicate or expired implant stickers attached to the medical record raises suspicion, but we cannot rule out the possibility that this is an auxiliary material." He continued, "The 'wedge-shaped implant' performed at the hospital requires two surgeries to cover the gums," and added, "Because the gap around the implant must be filled with autogenous bone naturally collected during drilling during this process, there is a possibility that an actual bone graft surgery was performed. “It is sufficient,” said Shin Min-soo, a lawyer at Daeryun Law Firm who represented Mr. A. “Unlike general implant surgery, it was effective to explain in detail to the court the medical mechanism of the special method used by our client.”[View full article] After receiving the implant, insurance pays for ‘jaw bone transplant’… Dentist accused of fraud 'not guilty' (Shortcut)

Exporting companies must know how to use export vouchers and the criteria for selecting successful partners. The global trade environment surrounding domestic exporting companies is changing faster than ever. The strengthening of tariffs and export controls in the United States, the expansion of environmental and ESG regulations in the EU, and the advancement of certification and non-tariff barriers by country are now a reality that applies not only to large corporations but also to small and medium-sized export companies without exception. In this environment, the 'Export Voucher Project' supported by the government goes beyond cost support and has established itself as a key strategic tool that manages the risks of export companies and accelerates entry into the global market. When the Export Voucher Project needs to focus on 'proactive risk management' beyond marketing The Export Voucher Project is a system designed to allow small and medium-sized export companies to freely select and utilize the services of private professional organizations registered as executing agencies by receiving vouchers from the government. In the past, it tended to be used for simple marketing, translation, and exhibition participation support, but recently, as global regulations have strengthened, the importance of 'proactive risk management services' has been greatly highlighted. Through the voucher, companies can receive initial entry advice, such as establishing an overseas corporation, as well as dispute prevention through export contract review and response services to the complex regulations and certification of the export partner country. Furthermore, it is possible to receive professional assistance for global risk management, ranging from precise diagnosis of tariff and non-tariff barriers to response to US tariff measures and export controls, which are hot topics in the recent trade environment. A problem often seen in practice is that legal, tariff, and regulatory risks are revealed only after a contract is signed, resulting in a situation where the cost of post-action response far exceeds the amount of voucher support. This is why export vouchers should be used at the early design stage rather than as a short-term cost-cutting tool.Fragmented advice is risky, and an 'integrated solution' is neededExport is not a single area problem. Within one transaction, complex issues such as contract law, customs law, foreign exchange transaction law, taxation, intellectual property rights, and local regulations are intertwined. This is evidenced by cases where a single overseas agency contract turns into a dispute over exclusive rights, errors in FTA origin judgment lead to additional tariffs, and brand use is blocked due to unregistered trademarks. Therefore, rather than seeking separate advice for each field, companies should find an implementation agency that will comprehensively review all of these factors. We must carefully consider whether a one-stop service covering legal affairs, tax affairs, customs duties, and intellectual property rights is possible, and whether professional personnel such as lawyers, customs experts, and tax accountants can collaborate within one system to design a structure to prevent disputes from arising from the beginning. This is the way to prevent dispersion of responsibility and disconnection of strategy. You must work with a partner who is responsible for implementation. In order to maximize the efficiency of using export vouchers, it is advantageous to select a partner who goes beyond the realm of advice and supports practical implementation. In other words, there is a need for a system that goes beyond consulting and supports trade document agency related to contracts, customs clearance, and payment, as well as overseas certification and local registration procedures. In particular, it is more important for small and medium-sized companies with limited internal manpower to select an implementation agency with such a complete structure. This is because, given the reality of companies lacking a separate dedicated department, handling everything from advice to document processing and local registration all at once will reduce the work burden and, conversely, enjoy the tangible effect of improving work speed. Furthermore, it will also be an important criterion to check whether the company has extensive experience in responding to actual disputes or sanctions rather than theoretical explanations, and whether the latest global trade issues can be immediately reflected in practice. Export vouchers, companies that use them properly will survive. Exporting has now become a strategy that determines the survival of companies. The export voucher project is the most powerful weapon given to the country to implement its strategy. What is important is ‘with whom and how’ you use this weapon. Instead of viewing vouchers as homework to be exhausted, companies should use them as an opportunity to find a reliable partner to accompany them on their global journey. If we select a company with the expertise to take full responsibility for our company's overseas expansion and actively utilize it, the trade environment of crisis will actually become an opportunity.[View full article] [Contribution] Export vouchers, a ‘strategy’ rather than a ‘subsidy’ (Shortcut)

[Interview] Son Dong-hu, SJKP American lawyer, "American court evidence can be used in Korea as well" Victims of Coupang's recent personal information leak incident have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. headquarters (Coupang Inc.), drawing industry attention. The legal community considers the 'discovery' (evidence discovery) system, which does not exist in Korea, as the key to victory or defeat, and believes that Coupang's internal reporting system and concealment circumstances, which were shrouded in mystery, may be revealed. There are also predictions that the evidence secured during this process could determine the direction of lawsuits and investigations in progress in Korea. In an interview with Money S on the 6th, U.S. attorney Son Dong-hoo of SJKP, who is leading the Coupang U.S. lawsuit, suggested that proceeding with the Coupang lawsuit in U.S. courts rather than in Korea could increase the success rate. The background to Attorney Son's suggestion is the compulsory nature of 'securing evidence.' Attorney Son pointed out, "Korean litigation is like a 'tilted playing field,'" and "Victims have to prove the company's wrongdoing, but in many cases, the company does not hold onto and release important server records or internal reports." On the other hand, the situation in the United States is different. This is because there is a discovery system that obligates both sides to disclose evidence before the trial begins. Attorney Son explained, "In the United States, a company can be forced to release all data related to a case, including internal emails, messenger conversations, and server access records. This is the system that Korean companies are most afraid of." He explained that Korea also has a system called 'document submission order', but it is not comparable to the United States in terms of effectiveness. In Korea, the plaintiff must specifically prove that “document A is over there” and ask for it to be pointed out. However, the reality is that from the perspective of a victim who does not know the company's internal circumstances, it is difficult to even know what to ask for. Attorney Son added, "US Discovery can request the entire 'information that may be related to this case'," and added, "It is a structure that makes it virtually impossible for a company to hide information just because it is a trade secret or is disadvantageous." “Even if the server is in Korea… if there is ‘control’ at the head office, it is subject to enforcement” Some raise the question of whether it would be difficult for a US court to enforce the data because it is located in a Korean corporation (Coupang). In response to this, Attorney Son explained, “The standard for U.S. courts is not physical location, but ‘who controls it?’” and “If the U.S. headquarters has the power (control) to order a Korean corporation to submit data, the U.S. court can issue a disclosure order even if the server is on the other side of the world.” What happens if a company deletes or does not submit unfavorable data? Attorney Son emphasized, “In an American court, destroying evidence is tantamount to suicide.” He said, “If you hide the data, the court will consider it as a de facto admission of the fact, saying, ‘How much of a sting would it take to hide it?’” and “It is even so strict that it will rule on the case immediately after the trial is over.” Attorney Son predicted that the ramifications of this lawsuit will not stop at the United States. He added, "Internal data legally obtained in U.S. lawsuits can be used as decisive evidence in trials or investigations in progress in Korea," and added, "There have been many cases in the past where internal documents revealed through U.S. discovery turned the tables on Korean lawsuits." Finally, Attorney Son said to victims who hesitate to participate in lawsuits, "The class action lawsuit and discovery system in the U.S. is a system that exists to reveal the internal truth of companies that individuals cannot access," adding, "We can file lawsuits against large corporations." “It is not easy to raise the issue, but this is a process that goes beyond simple compensation and establishes the correct standards for corporate responsibility,” he emphasized. Reporter Hwang Jeong-won (jwhwang@mt.co.kr)[View full article] ‘Slanted playing field’ Korea vs. ‘Forcing evidence’ USA… The direction of the Coupang lawsuit (link)

Coupang incident, It is not limited to the area of ​​personal information law. Fair trade law evaluation is possible when considering market dominant position. Large platforms should be required to take responsibility commensurate with their influence. The recent personal information leak incident that occurred at Coupang goes beyond a simple failure to protect information and raises important issues worth reexamining from a fair trade law perspective.. So far, personal information leak cases have been mainly discussed in the area of ​​the Personal Information Protection Act or the Information and Communications Network Act. However, if the platform company that is the party to the leak has a market dominant position or an equivalent competitive advantage, the legal evaluation is based on the Fair Trade Act.(or competition law)It has no choice but to expand into the area of. information leak, Distortion of the entire platform business order The essence of platform business lies in trust.. Consumers gain convenience and price competitiveness in exchange for providing personal information., Based on this, the platform strengthens economies of scale and network effects.. The problem is that if personal information is leaked in this structure, the damage is not limited to infringement on the rights of individual consumers, but also has the potential to distort the competitive order of the market as a whole..In particular, large platforms such as Coupang have a structure in which trading partners have limited options.. In this situation, accidents caused by neglect of personal information management act as a barrier to entry for competing businesses and at the same time affect consumers. 'Crying and eating mustard' This can lead to forcing a deal..Fair trade law has traditionally been, terms and conditions, We have regulated acts that restrict external competition, such as exclusive transactions.. However, the recent trend of competition law is based on data and algorithms., There is a trend to recognize non-price factors, such as loss of platform trust, as important competitive variables.. The level of personal information protection is also an extension of that.. Evading responsibility after the fact also distorts consumer choice. Looking at the Coupang incident from a fair trade law perspective,, The key points are summarized in three points..first, Whether there is a market dominant position or equivalent competitive advantage. In general, when determining a market dominant position, not only market share but also dependence on transactions in that market is considered., fungibility, The level of entry barriers are comprehensively considered.. Coupang's share of transactions and frequency of use in the e-commerce platform market, In particular, the repetitive use structure in the area of ​​everyday consumer goods is not unrelated to these judgment factors..The second is the so-called 'lock in(lock-in) effect'all. Membership Structure, fast delivery infrastructure, Points and subscription benefits act as factors that substantially increase consumers’ switching costs.. On the surface, it seems like a device to expand consumer benefits, but, If, as a result of the benefit, a structure is formed that makes it difficult for consumers to move to another platform even if they are dissatisfied with the level of personal information protection or transaction conditions, this may be evaluated as a competition-limiting effect..third, It's a matter of combining and accumulating data.. Large platforms have a purchasing history, search history, Payment information, We continue to strengthen our competitive edge by combining and analyzing multi-layered data such as shipping information.. Neglecting to manage personal information protection under this data combination structure may affect the overall data-based competitive order.. If a market-dominant business enjoys a competitive advantage through data combination but does not fulfill its corresponding protection obligations, it can raise an issue under fair trade law.. Evading responsibility or delaying damage relief during the response process after an accident also acts as a factor that distorts consumers' rational choices.. Germany, Unauthorized use of data 'Abuse of market dominant position' Regulations This issue is not only being discussed in Korea.. European Union(EU)and the German competition authorities already treat data and privacy protection as an important element of competition law..EU In the process of enforcing competition laws on large digital platforms, the Commission has continued to raise concerns about the impact of personal information collection and use on consumer choice and competitive structure.. In particular, it makes clear that personal information processing conditions may be evaluated as unfair transaction conditions if the platform actually functions as an essential transaction counterparty.. It is an approach based on the recognition that personal information protection is a factor that determines the quality of competition beyond regulatory compliance issues..The case of the German Federal Cartel Office is more direct.. German competition authorities took issue with the practice of a dominant platform operator combining and utilizing data collected from various services without the explicit consent of users. 'Abuse of market dominant position'It has been judged that. The key point in the case was not the data combination itself, but whether the consumer could actually refuse it or choose an alternative.. in other words, The judgment was made by linking the protection of personal information and the effect of limiting competition into one issue..These overseas cases show that personal information protection is gradually moving to the core of competition law rather than its outskirts.. Privacy Protection Competence, not obligatory 'competitiveness'Coupang's personal information leak incident clearly shows the intersection of personal information protection and fair trade law.. The Fair Trade Act no longer just governs price fixing or market division.. Fair trade law in the digital platform era is also required to play a role in protecting the trust infrastructure of the market.. From a policy standpoint, there is a need to clearly recognize personal information protection capabilities as a key competitive factor.. In the digital platform market, the level of personal information protection is no longer considered an incidental compliance item, but an essential transaction condition that determines consumer choice and trust.. Nevertheless, imposing only the same level of ex post sanctions or formal obligations on market-dominant platforms would be a measure that does not sufficiently reflect the reality of the data-driven competitive environment..There is a need to demand greater accountability and transparency from large, market-dominant platforms commensurate with their influence.. Disclosure of information regarding personal information processing and security investments, Quick and effective damage relief procedures in the event of an accident, Responsibility for explaining data combination and utilization structures must be institutionally supported.. This is not simply a discussion about increasing the level of punishment., The purpose is to establish the prerequisites for competition so that market participants can make rational choices..This approach is not aimed at sanctions or punishment against specific companies.. Privacy is not a cost across platform markets 'competitiveness'In the long run, it can be said to be the minimum condition for creating a competitive environment in which innovation and trust are compatible..Coupang's personal information leak incident goes beyond a technical incident and raises questions about the social and competition legal responsibilities that platform companies must bear from their dominant position.. If a platform has grown based on consumer trust, the legal evaluation that must be endured when that trust is damaged should not be limited to the framework of the Personal Information Protection Act.. From the perspective of competitive order, There is also a need to calmly look back on this incident from the perspective of the evolution of the Fair Trade Act.. [View full article] Coupang grew up on customer trust... Competition law sharpens [Daeryun’s Biz law forum] (Shortcut)

[Anchor] Coupang, which is suspected of trying to downplay the overwork of the late Deok-jun Jang, who died while working at Coupang, was found to have done this. Even though Mr. Jang died while working at Coupang, it was reported to the U.S. financial authorities that no employee died in an accident. Reporter Do-yoon Lee reported exclusively. [Report] Deok-jun Jang, who finished working overtime at the logistics center, died in October 2020 and February 2021. The Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service determines it to be an industrial accident. In March of the same year, Coupang was listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Mr. Jang's death occurred five months before listing, and recognition as an industrial accident occurred a month before. I checked the 2021 annual report submitted by Coupang to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Coupang's safety system is described as the best in the world, and it states that there has been no accidental death so far. The same happened in 2022, when at least one person died at the logistics center. This is a report. What stands out is Coupang's own classification method. After distinguishing between 'work-related' and 'accident-related' deaths, it only stated that there were '0' accidental deaths and did not mention work-related deaths. Although disclosure of the number of deaths is not required under the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's disclosure regulations, Coupang used 'expression' in the report that could easily be perceived as having no employee deaths. [Son Dong-hoo/US Attorney/Representative of Coupang Class Action Litigation: "The measurement standard was set too narrowly and important context was omitted. There is a high possibility that it will be evaluated as a disclosure that could mislead investors by omission..."] If this annual report, called 10-K, is found to be a false or deceptive disclosure, it will be subject to not only civil but also criminal and administrative liability. There have been more than 9,900 industrial accidents reported by Coupang to the Korean government over the past five years. However, the U.S. disclosure only said that there were no self-classified accidental deaths. Coupang said, "Until then, there were no industrial accidents at Coupang and its subsidiary businesses. “There are no deaths,” he explained. The intention is that Mr. Jang Deok-jun’s industrial accident was not an industrial accident. This is Do-yoon Lee of KBS News. Camera reporter: Jae-hyeon Ryu/Video editor: Seon-young Kim/Graphics: Geon-soo Yoo Do-yoon Lee (dobby@kbs.co.kr)[View full article] [Exclusive] Even after Jang Deok-jun’s industrial accident… Coupang only announced “0 accidental deaths” (link)