Press Coverage

The number of applicants for a class action lawsuit against the U.S. Coupang headquarters in connection with a large-scale personal information leak, including many citizens and permanent residents, has exceeded 2,300. According to SJKP LLP, a law firm partnering with Daeryun Law Firm on the 12th, a total of 2,346 applicants expressed their intention to participate in the U.S. class action lawsuit as of 10 a.m. on the 12th. SJKP held a press conference in New York, U.S. on the 8th of this month (local time) and filed a class action suit. Registration has started. It is reported that many of the applicants include U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and residents. Daeryun expects the number of participants to increase in the future as many of the applicants for domestic class action lawsuits that were previously in progress have announced that they will also participate in the U.S. lawsuit. Cases of damage received so far by SJKP include △ spam texts disguised as promotions for part-time Coupang logistics jobs △ calls informing participants of event participation impersonating Coupang △ notifications of Coupang login attempts from other countries and unknown devices. SJKP aims to cooperate with Daeryun to submit the complaint to the U.S. court within the year, and additional applicants are being accepted through the official websites of SJKP and Daeryun. New York attorney Son Dong-hu, who is leading this class action lawsuit, said, "The complaint is currently in the final stages of preparation, and we are analyzing the victims' cases and reviewing their suitability as plaintiffs in the U.S. federal court." He added, “Through the discovery system, we will reveal that the U.S. headquarters has been exercising core authority over security and risk investments and hold them accountable for poor management and supervision.” Kim Kuk-il, CEO of Daeryun Management, explained, “U.S. lawsuits are proceeded without separate down payment due to the nature of the local litigation structure.” He said, "We will do our best to ensure that victims can seek their rights as consumers in the courts of both Korea and the United States without burden and to sound a strong warning to Coupang, which is still busy avoiding responsibility." Reporter Lee Yong-seong (utility@sedaily.com)[View full article] Seoul Economic Daily - Coupang US class action lawsuit applicants exceed 2,300 in three days (Go here) Yonhap Infomax - The number of applicants for a class action lawsuit against Coupang's U.S. headquarters exceeds 2,300... “Goal of submitting complaint within the year” (link) Yonhap News - Applicants for class-action lawsuit against Coupang in U.S. exceed 2,300 (Shortcut) Sejeong Ilbo - SJKP “More than 2,300 applicants for Coupang class action lawsuit… expected to increase further” (link) Miju JoongAng Ilbo - Coupang class action lawsuit filed by more than 2,300 people (link)

Korea’s first ‘distance lifelong education center’ to provide legal and HR lectures - Daeryun “We plan to actively pursue talent matching through service-oriented education” Daeryun Law Firm announced on the 12th that it signed an MOU (business agreement) with Barun Career Co., Ltd., a legal HR professional organization, to foster legal professionals. The signing ceremony was held on the 10th in the conference room of Daeryun Yeouido main office, with Daeryun CEO Park Dong-il, Barun Career CEO Ji-woong Shin, and Barun Career CEO Seo-yoon Lee. It was held with the participation of the head of the division and other working-level staff. Bareun Career is a legal practice training institution that provides practical training and career consulting to those preparing for employment in the legal and business fields, and produces a large number of legal affairs talents into the field every year. Currently, a large number of legal contents are provided through Barun Law HR Academy and Barun Law HR Distance Lifelong Education Center. Through this MOU, Daeryun plans to strengthen its continuous talent training model that leads to training, employment, and job settlement. In particular, the basic practical competencies, such as the service mind, basic work attitude, customer communication competency, and accuracy of record and document management, which are most important in law firm work, are reflected in the training course to foster talent needed in the actual field and increase recruitment efficiency. Through this agreement, the two companies will △ plan a curriculum centered on the basic job competency and service spirit of legal clerks △ case-based practical training to increase field adaptability △ strengthen employment linkage based on talent matching △ jointly promote and operate programs. We plan to pursue this in stages. Shin Ji-woong, CEO of Bareun Career, said, "For legal clerks, not only professionalism, but also attitude toward customers and service mind are important. Through cooperation with Daeryun, we will help trainees settle into their jobs more stably." Park Dong-il, CEO of Daeryun Law Firm, said, "Daeryun is a law firm that has operated a practical, systematic work system, and it is significant in nurturing the talent needed in the field." He added, "This agreement will serve as an opportunity for legal clerks. “We will raise the level of education and discover talent suitable for law firm work,” he said. Reporter Cheon Ju-young (young1997@mydaily.co.kr)[View full article] Daeryun signs MOU with Proper Career to foster legal professionals (Click here)

A corporate executive who was accused of embezzling 1.8 billion won of company money was cleared by the prosecution. According to the legal community on the 11th, the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office decided not to indict Mr. A, a man in his 40s, who was transferred on charges of embezzlement under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes. Mr. A was accused of embezzling 1.8 billion won while working as a co-CEO at a manufacturing company run by Mr. B, who is in his 40s, from 2014 to 2019. Mr. B claimed that Mr. A received a false tax invoice from a paper company without actually transacting goods, remitted the company money, and received it back into his personal account. In response, Mr. A claimed that although it was true that he had raised funds using false tax invoices, it was for the company to give rebates to major clients, and that it was all done under the instructions and approval of Mr. B. The prosecution found that the funds raised were actually delivered in cash to the person in charge of the client, and ruled that Mr. A was not guilty as there was no evidence of personal use. In addition, it was determined that Mr. A was not guilty as Mr. B received a notification message when transferring company funds and was aware of the flow of funds, such as directly managing the OTP. Attorney Shin Min-soo of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, “For a crime of embezzlement to be established, the intent to illegally obtain property by disposing of other people’s property as if it were one’s own must be proven. In this case, Mr. B sued Mr. A to protect his business interests by shifting responsibility for the rebate conflict that arose between business partners. “We were able to clear the charges by objectively proving that the funds raised by Mr. A were used for the company’s operating profits,” he explained. Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article]

Establishment of a ‘one-stop’ system from field-oriented training to employment linkage... Maximizing recruitment efficiency Daeryun “We will foster talent to provide more accurate and efficient legal services.” Daeryun Law Firm signed an MOU with the Central Legal Affairs Education Academy and announced on the 11th that it has established a strategic partnership for nurturing practical legal talent and linking employment based on Legal Tech. The signing ceremony held at Daeryun Law Firm’s headquarters office at Park One Law Firm in Yeouido, Seoul on the 4th was attended by Byeong-Jun Ko of Daeryun Law Firm. The CEO and Central Legal Affairs Education Academy's Director Byeong-ho Han and Manager Yeon-hwa Hong were in attendance. The Central Legal Affairs Education Academy is Korea's leading legal practice training institution that combines group education and distance education and produces about 600 legal clerks into the field every year. Through this MOU, Daeryun Law Firm plans to build a continuous legal talent development model that continues from practice, employment, and job settlement based on field-oriented education. We plan to strengthen practical capabilities by combining our own Legal Tech development capabilities and unrivaled litigation system into the curriculum. Specifically, we plan to cooperate in various fields such as ▶ jointly developing electronic litigation and AI-based document practical training courses, ▶ establishing a practical learning platform incorporating litigation quality management standards, and ▶ promoting cooperation between the two organizations. In particular, we will jointly plan customized training courses based on the demand for specialized fields required by Daeryun, and through the academy system when demand for manpower arises. The plan is to maximize recruitment efficiency by immediately supporting resume matching and talent placement. Director Byeong-ho Han of the Central Law Office Education Academy said, “We will continue to produce professional legal talent who can be immediately utilized in the field,” and “We will lead the expansion of expertise in the legal industry based on cooperation with Daeryun.” Ko Byeong-jun, CEO of Daeryun Law Firm, said, “Daeryun is the first law firm in Korea to establish a litigation quality service system based on an American system, and will provide more accurate and efficient legal services through this MOU. “We will foster talent together,” he said, adding, “It will be the starting point of legal service innovation that simultaneously realizes the introduction of legal tech and securing excellent talent.” Meanwhile, Daeryun Law Firm is focusing its capabilities on strengthening legal service expertise by actively introducing legal tech in line with the rapidly changing legal market environment, such as developing and operating ‘AI Daeryun’, an AI-based legal consultation chatbot. Reporter Son Dong-wook, Law Leader twson@lawleader.co.kr Daeryun Law Firm, MOU with Central Law Office Education Academy... ‘Nurturing practical talent based on legal tech’ (Go here)

Early termination of lease contract... 'Landlord's fault vs. lessee's fault' The court said, "The protection period for recovery of key money does not apply... Circumstances of unauthorized subletting by tenants" Even if a commercial lease contract was terminated midway, if there was no clear agreement on the end point, the court ruled that the protection period for recovery of key money should be based on the end date of the first contract. Last October, the Jeju District Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim in a rental deposit lawsuit filed by self-employed person A against building owner B. Person A last October In 2022, he signed a commercial lease contract with Mr. B for a three-year contract period, but due to personal circumstances, he requested cancellation a few months after signing. Mr. B complied, and the two parties reached an agreement on the premise of terminating the contract. Afterwards, Mr. A found a new tenant, signed a key money contract, and even coordinated the schedule for signing the lease agreement between Mr. B and the new tenant. However, a problem arose when Mr. B changed his existing position and refused to sign the lease contract. Mr. B said that he would use the commercial building himself. This is because he refused to sign a contract with the new tenant. Mr. A claimed that this hindered his opportunity to recover the deposit. In addition, he demanded payment of approximately 30 million won, claiming that Mr. B did not return part of the deposit without his consent. Mr. B refuted this. The notice was that the contract was terminated because Mr. A had sub-leased part of the store to a third party without permission. It was emphasized that the date of the key money contract signed by Mr. A did not fall within the key money recovery protection period under the Commercial Lease Act. The court ruled in Mr. B's favor. The court said, "It is difficult to say that there was a specific agreement on the end of the lease in the agreement process between the two sides," and "The key money recovery protection period is from six months before the end of the first contract until the end, so the defendant's sabotage “It does not fall within this period,” he said. He added, “It has been confirmed that the plaintiff ran a ‘Shop and Shop’ type advertisement with the intention of subletting part of the building. This is subletting without consent, and the defendant is not liable for damages under the Commercial Lease Act.” He added, “The rental deposit that was not returned by the defendant is justified because it deducted the cost of restoration to its original state.” Attorney Kim Dong-hwan of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. B, said, “Mr. “From the beginning, we had no intention of recognizing Mr. A’s right to sublease, so we had a ‘sublease prohibition clause’ at the time of the lease contract,” he explained. “Not only was it not a period during which protection for collection of key money was recognized under the Commercial Lease Act, but the fact of unauthorized sublease also constitutes a reason to exclude this obligation, so the claim related to key money itself was groundless. #Tenant #Rights #Claim dismissed.” Park Seok-ho (haitai2000@ikbc.co.kr)[View full article] Tenant claims "I was prevented from recovering the deposit"... Why is the law dismissing the claim? (Shortcut)

According to a press release from the Korea Economic Association, there was a case in which an automobile parts supplier became the subject of a collusion investigation by the Fair Trade Commission after making a statement at an industry meeting that "we have no choice but to adjust the delivery unit price similarly." Even though there was no actual conspiracy to raise prices or conclusion of a separate contract, the mere circumstance of exchanging words put the company on the verge of fines, punitive damages, and even criminal punishment. Article 40, Paragraph 1, Item 9 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter referred to as the Fair Trade Act) prohibits acts that substantially limit competition in certain trade areas by exchanging price, production volume, and other information prescribed by Presidential Decree with other businesses (including the business that committed such acts). In other words, even if there is no explicit agreement, the exchange of sensitive information can be considered collusion if it is judged to have restricted market competition as a result. In fact, the Fair Trade Commission has strengthened the tendency to view information sharing between competitors as implicit communication, that is, as strong evidence of collusion, through the 'Unfair Collaborative Conduct Review Guidelines'. In particular, Article 44, Paragraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act specifies the information subject to sanctions as the cost of products, shipment volume, inventory volume, sales volume, transaction conditions, or payment conditions of price or consideration. Therefore, even in meeting minutes, emails, messenger conversations, and even private conversations, if the above sensitive information is exchanged, there is ample room for it to be interpreted as a signal of price cooperation. The problem is that this risk can occur even if no actual collusion was planned or executed. This is because, from the perspective of practitioners, the line between sharing information and expressing intent to collude can feel ambiguous. In particular, companies with denser industry networks or more complex distribution and marketing structures have more external contact points, and there are many cases where unintentional words and actions become a problem in exchanges with partners or competitors. If an investigation by the Fair Trade Commission is initiated, the company will be burdened with the burden of proof to actively prove that there was no collusion. Therefore, the company must establish a three-stage compliance strategy of 'prevention-inspection-response' to minimize the risk of information exchange. First, in the preventive stage, internal guidelines must be elaborated. Prohibited information stipulated by the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act must be specified and employees must be educated that sharing it with competitors can be considered collusion. In particular, when attending an association meeting or meeting, it is safe to specify the scope of permitted speech in advance. Next, at the inspection stage, a system for managing records must be established. It is important to recognize that materials such as reports and competitor trend analysis documents may be subject to investigation in the event of a dispute, and strict preparation and storage standards must be followed. Communication records with the outside world must also be managed transparently to prevent unintentional information exchange. If you are at the stage of being investigated for suspicion of collusion, you must quickly prepare an initial response logic. The key is to prove that the information exchange at issue was not intended to restrict competition and was unrelated to price or production decisions. Due to the nature of collusion in information exchange, interpretation is more important than objective documents or data, so if data or statements that can support 'there was no intention to agree' are not organized in the beginning, suspicion can become confirmed. A corporate crisis can start not only from the failure of a grand strategy, but also from a seemingly trivial loophole in information management. Now that fair trade regulations are becoming more sophisticated and standards for judging the illegality of information exchange are becoming stricter, it is a time when a 'verbal risk management strategy' that is as detailed and strict as a management strategy is required. Small and Medium Business Team[View full article] “Is industry information exchange colluding?”… ‘Speech and action risks’ that companies need to be aware of (link)

It was found that over 2,000 cases of consumer damage related to the marriage brokerage business have occurred in the past five years. According to the Korea Consumer Agency on the 10th, the total number of applications for damage relief related to the marriage brokerage business investigated by the Korea Consumer Agency from 2020 to August of this year is 2,038. By year, the number of applications increased by about 50% in five years from 276 in 2020 to 416 in 2024. The number of marriages has decreased by nearly 40% in 10 years, but the number of members joining the marriage information company (Jeongjeongsa) is increasing, and the related damage is also increasing. Attorney Lee Eun-sol of the Daeryun Law Firm said, "According to the law, Jeongjeongsa has an obligation not to provide false information to users, and if damage is caused intentionally or through negligence, it must also be liable for civil compensation." However, if the court determines that a reasonable verification process has been followed, it may be difficult to hold responsible, so thorough verification is required from the contract stage. “It is necessary,” he emphasized. The following is the main content of the interview with this lawyer regarding legal action in case of damage related to marriage brokerage. -The types of marriage brokerage fraud that mainly occur. ▲There are three main problems. First, there is marital history fraud. This is the case when people hide the fact of divorce or even sign up as unmarried while having a legal spouse. This is the most basic verification obligation under the standard terms and conditions. In some cases, not only one's own occupation or property but also family relationships, such as the occupation and property of parents, are falsely disclosed. Likewise, there are often cases of concealing medical history that may have a significant impact on debt status or marriage, such as rehabilitation or bankruptcy proceedings. However, it is also true that there are limits to verification because the company does not have the authority to inquire about criminal records or sensitive medical histories, etc. - To what extent does a marriage information company have a legal obligation to verify member information? ▲The 'Act on the Management of Marriage Brokerage Businesses' (hereinafter referred to as the Marriage Brokerage Act) states that marriage brokers 'must not provide false information' to users. As a result, this means that the company has an obligation to verify information. According to the ‘Marriage Information Business Standard Terms and Conditions’ first enacted in 2001, it is stipulated to confirm the marital status of the member and confirm the veracity of personal information that requires verification between the parties, such as education, occupation, and medical history. In other words, the company must use good managers to verify the authenticity of key information that can be objectively determined through documents such as graduation certificates, employment certificates, and withholding tax receipts submitted by members. A duty of care is borne. -What punishment will be imposed if a decision maker provides false information in violation of the law? Is punishment possible even in cases of negligence? ▲According to Article 26 of the Marriage Brokerage Act, a person who provides false information to a user may be subject to ‘imprisonment of up to 5 years or a fine of up to 50 million won.’ However, for criminal punishment, intentionality must be proven, but in practice, in most cases, negligence such as negligence in verification is an issue rather than in cases where a company intentionally provides false information. In this case, Article 14 of the same law stipulates that 'if damage is caused to a user intentionally or through negligence, the company is responsible for compensating for the damage.' To this end, marriage brokers are required to sign up for warranty insurance. - Companies try to avoid liability based on disclaimers such as 'there was no problem on paper' or 'information may be different' in the contract. Can I still receive compensation in this case? ▲You should check the disclaimer clause in the contract. Provisions such as ‘the relevant information may differ from reality’ may be invalid. This is because provisions that are unfairly disadvantageous to customers, contrary to the principle of good faith, or that exclude liability due to the business's intent or gross negligence, are prohibited. If such an exemption clause is invalid, the essential liability of the business remains. Article 14 of the Marriage Brokerage Act and the default provisions of the Civil Code require a business to be liable for compensation if damage is caused by its negligence. If you receive a suspicious document and neglect additional verification, this is a violation of the ‘duty of care as a good manager’ and clear negligence, so you can claim civil damages. - The key strategy for a fraud victim to win a lawsuit against the matchmaking company as well as the individual member who was defrauded is: ▲ To win against the company, you must prove the company’s intention or negligence. The main issue is proving that the company knew the facts were false or neglected information that could have been known if they had been a little careful. For example, if the company promotes the member as an excellent member or guarantees that verification has been completed, this is strong evidence that strengthens the company's responsibility. In addition, the key to winning or losing a lawsuit is proving through consultation recordings, emails, text messages, etc. that the member neglected to verify the original documents submitted or ignored obvious suspicious circumstances and pushed ahead with the brokerage. Reporter Kwon Byeong-seok (bsk730@fnnews.com)[View full article] ‘Death by decision’ warning… Measures to prevent marriage brokerage fraud (Go here)

The parent accused of insulting the director by uploading a daycare center's 'contribution fund practice' at Mom Cafe said, "Subjective value judgment... public interest cannot be denied." A parent who was sued for defamation after posting an article criticizing the operation of a daycare center on an Internet Mom Cafe was cleared by the prosecution. The Eastern Branch of the Busan District Prosecutors' Office decided not to indict Mr. A, who was transferred on charges of violating the Information and Communications Network Act (defamation) last October. Last April, Mr. posted an article related to childcare center subsidies on the Mom Cafe bulletin board. At the time, the article contained content pointing out the opaque support and subsidy practices of the daycare center management committee. It is known that Mr. A used expressions such as “gaslighting” and “being ripped off” in his writing. Accordingly, Mr. B, the director of the daycare center, sued Mr. A for defamation. In the case of the subsidy, parents voluntarily raised funds, and there was no request for subsidy from the daycare center. At the same time, Mr. B claimed, “When Mr. A did not receive the video of the daycare event, he was vindictive and posted false information.” On the other hand, Mr. A denied the charges. Mr. A countered, saying, “I worked as a member of the steering committee for a year and personally experienced that Mr. B was putting psychological pressure on parents by complaining about financial difficulties.” He added, “The purpose of the article in question was to prevent damage to other parents and to urge improvement in the management method.” The prosecution decided not to indict Mr. A. The prosecution explained, “The overall content of the article posted by the suspect appears to represent a subjective value judgment about the unfairness he experienced while serving as a member of the steering committee for about a year, and it is difficult to view this as a disclosure of specific facts required for defamation.” In addition, he explained, “Like the contents of the suspect's restroom, we have taken into account the fact that the public interest cannot be denied.” Attorney Kim Sang-gu of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, “Under the Information and Communications Network Act, defamation is not established simply by using critical expressions, but the purpose of slandering a person must be recognized.” He added, “Since the client's main motive was for the public interest of securing transparency in the operation of a daycare center, there were some private motives on the side. “Even if it was included, we were able to obtain a good result by legally demonstrating that the purpose of defamation could not be recognized,” he said. Digital News Department[View full article] A person in his 40s who wrote a comment criticizing a daycare center on Mom Cafe was not indicted (link)

Daeryun Law Firm, which represented the class action lawsuit, said, “The amount of compensation will be much more realistic than in Korea.” A class action lawsuit is being pursued in the United States against Coupang, which suffered a large-scale personal information leak of 33.7 million items. Daeryun Law Firm, which represented the lawsuit, announced that the number of participants in the lawsuit has already exceeded 1,000, and that any member who has ordered at least once from Coupang can participate in the lawsuit. Attorney Dong-hoo Son from SJKP, Daeryun's local U.S. subsidiary, said on CBS Radio's 'Kim Hyun-jung's News Show' on the 10th, "Regarding this personal information leak, we are filing a lawsuit against Coupang Inc, the parent company of Coupang's Korean corporation, in New York, USA. “We are filing a consumer class action lawsuit in the Southern District Court,” he said. “Coupang Inc. is a corporation located in the U.S. state of Delaware, a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq, and a company that owns 100% of Coupang Korea’s shares.” In response to the host's question, 'Can only people with American nationality participate in the lawsuit?', he responded, "The victim's residence is not important. Those in Korea and those in foreign countries other than Korea can participate in the lawsuit in the U.S. Federal Court if they have suffered damages." Regarding the size of the compensation amount, he said, "It is difficult to tell you the amount itself," but explained, "I will tell you that the compensation amount is much more realistic than in Korea." Kim Kook-il, CEO of Daeryun Management, said in an interview with MBC Radio on the same day, "As of yesterday's press conference, (the number of people participating in the lawsuit) was about 200, but it has already exceeded 1,000." CEO Kim said, "Any member who has ordered at least once from Coupang can participate in this lawsuit. In the United States, there is an 'opt-out' system, so even if you were not a plaintiff in this lawsuit, you will receive compensation according to the judgment unless you give up your rights. However, there will be a difference in the amount of compensation for those who directly participated as a plaintiff and those who were not plaintiffs." Regarding the reason for pursuing a compensation lawsuit in the United States rather than Korea, he said, "Compensation in Korea only proves what kind of damage there is and compensates for the damage. Compensation in the United States has the meaning of punishment. When damage is caused by anti-social corporate activities, not only compensation for the damage, but also retaliatory compensation for the negligence that created the damage. It is meant as a deterrent to prevent such things from happening in the future." He continued, "What I want in this lawsuit is “This is because we can secure emails exchanged between Coupang’s U.S. headquarters and Coupang’s Korean headquarters, meeting materials, and decisions made by the board of directors,” he said. “This content will be more reliable and more extensive than what will be revealed through the investigation in Korea. If there is any information related to corporate security system management, we would like to secure it.” Reporter Lim Joo-hyung skepped@asiae.co.kr[View full article] Asia Economy - "Coupang class action lawsuit in the U.S. exceeds 1,000 participants... You can participate if you have ever placed an order" (link) Hankook Ilbo - U.S. Coupang litigation representative: "Participants exceeded 1,000 overnight... Goal of 10,000" (Go here) Opinion News - [Coupang Incident] U.S. Litigation Agent: "The number of participants in the lawsuit has surpassed 1,000... Target is 10,000" (Go to here) Rotalk News - "1,000 people gathered in one day" Coupang's 'class action lawsuit' goes to New York court due to angry public sentiment (Go here) Money Today - Coupang incident, class action lawsuit expected in the US... Litigation representative: “Goal of 10,000 plaintiffs” (link) Pressian - Coupang US class action lawsuit increases by 1,000 in one day... "'Compulsory data submission', unexpected information will come out" (link) Munhwa Ilbo - Class action lawsuit against Coupang will be filed in the US... “Over 1,000 people overnight” (Shortcut)

U.S. class action lawsuit, Participants in one day 200number of people→1Over 1,000 people- Anyone who has placed an order can participate…In Korea, criminal proceedings are also carried out in parallel.- U.S. class action lawsuit ‘Opt out’ method…Even non-participants in the lawsuit can receive compensation- In the United States, punitive damages apply…It is difficult to predict the amount of compensation- ‘discovery’ Key data such as emails and meeting minutes will be secured through- Restoration when data is destroyed...Concealment or deletion can be punishable as obstruction of justice.- If there was insufficient investment in security compared to the number of members, the head office ignored security.- U.S. Court dismissal possible? Depends on the size of the litigants and the participation of multinational victims- Complaint filed, The goal is to raise it within the year, but it could happen sooner. ■ broadcast : MBC radio standardFM 95.9MHz <Kim Jong-bae's attention>(07:05~08:30)■ progress : Kim Jong-bae, current affairs critic■ talk : Kuk-il Kim, CEO of Daeryun Law Firm (Represented Coupang in a U.S. class action lawsuit) ☏ host > A lawsuit is underway in the U.S. regarding Coupang's large-scale personal information leak.. He held a press conference in New York yesterday and announced plans for a lawsuit.. I will connect you to the phone number of Kim Kuk-il, CEO of Daeryun Law Firm.. The representative is with me.? ☏ Kim Kuk-il > yes, hello. This is Kim Kuk-il.. ☏ host > First of all, the number of people who have announced that they will participate in the class action lawsuit is one. 200You said at a press conference yesterday that it would be around 10,000 people.. Has it increased more in the meantime?, How about? ☏ Kim Kuk-il > yes, I really feel the power of broadcasting.. There was even a press conference yesterday 200There were about 1,000 people already. 1There are now over 1,000 people.. ☏ host > is it so? ☏ Kim Kuk-il > yes. ☏ host > However, yesterday, during the press conference, the CEO ‘one 100Several people were even entrusted with the task of filing criminal charges and accusations.’ This is what I said. In addition to filing a claim for damages, will you also file a criminal complaint?? ☏ Kim Kuk-il > What we do in Korea is both civil and criminal.. I used to SKT When the information was leaked, it was divided into two fields: civil and criminal, but at that time, civil was the main field and criminal was only a small part.. However, at Coupang this time, I divided the civil and criminal categories, and contrary to what I expected, almost half of the people applied for the criminal category as well.. ☏ host > Then the detective work is carried out in Korea.? ☏ Kim Kuk-il > yes, yes. ☏ host > So, can any Coupang member participate in this litigation group?? ☏ Kim Kuk-il > yes, yes. Anyone who has ordered at least one item from Coupang can participate.. ☏ host > However, in the United States, there is a class action system, so even if you are not included in the group of litigants, if a judgment is made, isn't there a system where the judgment is applied equally?, Does this have anything to do with this this time?? ☏ Kim Kuk-il > Unless you waive a right you do not wish to have by opting out, you will receive compensation according to the judgment even if you were not the plaintiff.. ☏ host > Even in this lawsuit.? ☏ Kim Kuk-il > yes, yes. Only those who became plaintiffs, The amount of compensation varies slightly between those who are members and not the plaintiff.. ☏ host > There is some difference. But you are saying that you can receive compensation.. ☏ Kim Kuk-il > yes, yes. ☏ host > How much is the compensation claim amount currently being calculated?? ☏ Kim Kuk-il > You asked the most difficult question.. Class action class action lawsuits in the U.S. have punitive implications. In the case of Korea 1big1 It's called compensation.. All you have to do is prove what kind of damage there is and compensate for that damage.. ☏ host > That's right. ☏ Kim Kuk-il > However, punitive damages in the United States ‘punishment’There is a meaning. When damages are caused by intentionally, illegally, and anti-social corporate activities, not only compensation for the damages, but also compensation in the form of punitive retribution is required for the intentional or serious negligence that caused the damages.. At the same time, compensation is also added as a deterrent to prevent something like this from happening again in the future.. So we cannot predict how much compensation will be awarded in class actions.. What I want most since I got to do class action is to become an investigative agency in the United States., Didn’t I say that in Korea, I handle civil and criminal matters?? In the US, it's actually a class action civil service.. We can utilize the discovery system in class action civil affairs in the United States.. ☏ host > Are you talking about the system that forces submission of data?? ☏ Kim Kuk-il > That's right. It has the same meaning as detective work in Korea.. Emails or reporting materials exchanged between Coupang headquarters and Coupang Korea held by the headquarters, Meeting materials, Next, the decisions made by the Board of Directors at Coupang’s headquarters, We can secure this information through Discovery.. I expect that the contents will be more reliable than those revealed by investigative agencies through investigations in Korea, and that a large amount of unexpected contents will be revealed.. ☏ host > You mentioned it briefly a while ago, but the data you want to secure through Discovery is mainly data that can prove, for example, that the US headquarters was aware of lax security or how they responded after personal information was leaked., Would you say that the focus is on this aspect?? ☏ Kim Kuk-il > yes, yes. To give a simple example, although it is not completely confirmed, Chinese security agents, When the employee in charge of the authentication left the company, he took the authentication key with him and used it to steal member information over a long period of time.? Such lax security management, Is it true that headquarters didn’t know about information management?? I just did what I've always done about it., what investment, I believe that such matters, such as investing or making changes to a security level that meets global standards, were discussed within the board of directors and Coupang headquarters.. If it wasn't discussed at all, it means ignoring security.. ☏ host > If you compare it to a public service society, it would be considered dereliction of duty., then? ☏ Kim Kuk-il > yes, yes. Most of the members are citizens 5If there are 10 million people 3500It can be said that there are 10,000 members, but there are really only a few thousand people who are managed., If it has been managed with a security system that manages tens of thousands of people, can't it be seen as a system that deserves social criticism?? Coupang headquarters was also informed that an internal employee was stealing data knowing this, but they did not take action quickly., Also, the number of people was reduced further., Or, even though they knew that reporting would be reduced, they announced it to the outside world only with a small number of people., announced, We also want to secure whether there are any emails or other materials that convey this kind of information.. ☏ host > Considering the possibility that the data may have been destroyed or concealed, is this also possible to track and confirm?? ☏ Kim Kuk-il > yes. There is a technology that can restore it without deleting it all from the computer data anyway., And if you conceal or destroy such materials, you will be subject to appropriate punishment such as obstruction of justice.. ☏ host > Then, if you file a lawsuit, the Discovery you mentioned, Is it possible to trigger this right away and request submission of data right away?? ☏ Kim Kuk-il > However, Class Action is a, Even in Korea, where class actions were created due to these limitations, class actions are still only available individually and have not been officially introduced.? It's the same in America. This is a very, very special case and it is recognized as a multi-victim lawsuit, so the first thing that is accepted by the court is that it is recognized as a class action.. Since all the victims are in Korea, it only happens in Korea, so the U.S. courts have no jurisdiction over this., Even if you ask, we can't accept it., This is how the U.S. court can rule again. ☏ host > How much of a possibility do you think it is?? ☏ Kim Kuk-il > I think the odds depend on us continuing to collect victims.. ☏ host > Do you think it depends on the number of victims?, Do you think it depends on the size of the litigation team?? ☏ Kim Kuk-il > I hope that multinational victims come forward along with the scale.. ☏ host > In countries other than Korea? ☏ Kim Kuk-il > yes. In particular, aren’t there also Koreans in the U.S.?? There are quite a few people like this who are also members of Coupang in Korea.. When these people file a lawsuit together with Korean citizens, even in the U.S. court, this is not just a Korean problem.. ☏ host > That's right. ☏ Kim Kuk-il > Just looking at the manuscript makes it difficult to reject it.. This is important to us and that is why we held a press conference yesterday.. many people, In particular, we hope that many people in the United States will participate.. I held this press conference to appeal that.. ☏ host > That's the key in the end.. If you look at it that way. ☏ Kim Kuk-il > yes it is. If you pass that gate, we will start a lawsuit in court and present evidence for both sides., Please provide proof, Of course, Coupang headquarters will only issue what is advantageous to them, right?? Then, we apply for discovery and the court says, “Please check everything.” This is how the process goes. ☏ Host > This lawsuit is being filed primarily by consumers and members, but isn't it possible for shareholders or investors to file lawsuits as well? ☏ Kim Kuk-il > That’s right. In this case alone, I think an investor lawsuit is possible because reporting, reporting, and notification were delayed, and there were violations of disclosure obligations, but since Coupang member users and consumers suffered the most damage, we are trying to focus here first. ☏ Host > Then, when do you expect to file a complaint? ☏ Kim Kook-il > Since so many people have responded positively, we are discussing internally whether we should actually go a little faster than expected. Originally, I was planning to file it somehow within the year, but I'm expecting that it might happen sooner. ☏ Host > You can't just cut a radish with a knife, so you initially thought that the standard was around 1,000 people? ☏ Kim Kuk-il > Yes, that’s right. ☏ Host > But the number of people exceeded 1,000 overnight. ☏ Kook-il Kim > Yes, that’s right. ☏ Host > Then, you can file a complaint right away. ☏ Kim Kook-il > Today, while I was having a morning meeting, I was in New York, and when I was meeting with American lawyers, my first estimate was that SKT, which we are still working on, would have about 1,000 people, but it fell short of that. Nevertheless, we proceeded because we had a deadline, and in the case of Coupang, of course, we expected SKT and set it at 1,000 people, but it surpassed the number in one day, so you can see how the people are so angry about Coupang that they cannot resolve it. So, at this morning's meeting, we just said, let's just take 10,000 people. ☏ Host > Okay. Lastly, I would like to ask this question. It is about the speed of litigation. If the Korean government's investigation results are officially announced and fines are imposed on them, will the speed of litigation in the United States speed up, and what will happen? ☏ Kim Kuk-il > That’s right. Wasn't the reason we filed a civil and criminal complaint, especially a search and seizure in the criminal case? ☏ Host > That’s right. ☏ Kim Kook-il > If the process of the leak through the search and seizure, who leaked it, how this friend leaked it, what preparations were made at the company level for it, and whether the company knew about it even after it was leaked and then covered it up again, if these things come out through the investigation, wouldn't there not be a lot of information to check even if we apply for discovery? ☏ Host > That’s right. That's right. ☏ Kim Kuk-il > Rather, the reason for proceeding with both Korea and the United States is that there is an advantage in being able to use the data obtained from one side for the other side. ☏ Host > Yes, I understand. I think we should listen to today's words up to this point. There are probably many people who are watching the litigation progress. Thank you. Representative. ☏ Kook-il Kim > Yes, thank you. ☏ Host > We were with Kim Kuk-il, CEO of Daeryun Law Firm.[View full article] [Focus] Coupang class action lawsuit, "Concealment of headquarters data is not possible... U.S. court can proceed with forced submission and restoration procedures" (Go here)