Press Coverage

| Internal Economy TV = Reporter Ban Jae-dong | A law firm and an information security company have established a cooperation system. The purpose is to establish a response system that links security and legal advice. Daeryun Law Firm announced that it has signed a business agreement with iSecure, a digital forensics and information protection company. The agreement ceremony was held at the Daeryun main office in Yeouido, Seoul. Attending the site were officials from both companies, including Daeryun CEO Kim Kuk-il, lawyer Lee Seo-hyung, and iSecure CEO Yoo Won-jun. iSecure is an information security company established in 2005 and operates in the fields of ISMS consulting, vulnerability diagnosis, penetration testing, and security solutions. Through this agreement, the two companies decided to establish a cooperation system that links corporate security risk diagnosis and legal advice. The main contents of cooperation include technical support related to information security certification consulting, provision of legal advice, and legal support related to overseas expansion of startups. Won Won-jun, CEO of iSecure, said, “Recent corporate information security issues could soon lead to enormous legal and economic damage,” and added, “Through cooperation with Daeryun, a large domestic law firm, we will provide practical consulting to help corporate customers have a safer and more complete information protection system.” Kim Kook-il, CEO of Daeryun, said, "It is meaningful to work with iSecure, which has deep know-how in the information security field. We will become a reliable partner that perfectly protects corporate customers from compliance risks through a one-stop service that combines our legal expertise and information protection consulting."[View full article] Daeryun signs MOU with iSecure... Security and legal advisory cooperation (link)

Non-face-to-face medical treatment is no longer an optional service, but is becoming a factor directly related to the competitiveness of medical institutions.. Chronic disease patients, returning patient, Patients with difficulty moving, Office workers already consider the possibility of treatment and prescriptions without visiting the hospital as an important selection criterion.. In a situation where competing medical institutions within the same treatment area have a non-face-to-face visit management system, if they do not operate it, patient withdrawal is inevitable.. Management of chronic diseases, especially high blood pressure and diabetes, Description of test results, Non-face-to-face treatment serves as an effective means of simultaneously increasing treatment efficiency and patient retention rate in post-surgical progress checks.. Non-face-to-face treatment, not fully permitted 'conditional institutionalization'…Risk of expansion into criminal and administrative issues 2025year 12Non-face-to-face medical treatment was incorporated into a permanent system through the revision of the Medical Service Act in February, but at the same time, strong restrictions and conditions were set.. The current system is still based on face-to-face treatment and focuses on the clinic level., Focus on returning patients, The basic structure of prohibiting institutions dedicated to non-face-to-face treatment is maintained.. In particular, it is allowed for patients who received face-to-face treatment for the same symptoms at the same medical institution within a certain period of time., In other cases, the region and scope of prescription may be limited.. Hospital-level and higher medical institutions are also not able to freely provide non-face-to-face treatment to all patients., It is allowed only in cases where there are certain exceptions, such as patients with rare diseases or patients undergoing follow-up after surgery.. In addition, non-face-to-face prescriptions are restricted for drugs with a risk of abuse, such as narcotics, and if patient information is insufficient, the number of days prescribed or the type of drug may be further restricted.. Ultimately, it is reasonable to understand this revision as legislation that both allows and strengthens control.. Non-face-to-face medical treatment takes place in an environment where examination and palpation are impossible and one must rely on the patient's statement.. Nevertheless, the law does not lower the medical staff's duty of care. In other words, a structure is formed that assumes the same level of responsibility as face-to-face treatment while making decisions based on limited information.. Therefore, future disputes will involve not only the simple results of medical treatment, but also 'Why did you choose non-face-to-face treatment in this situation?'acts as a key issue. For example, chest pain, Difficulty breathing, acute pain, Failure to switch to face-to-face treatment despite symptoms of neurological abnormalities, The judgment itself can be assessed as negligence.. Ultimately, in non-face-to-face medical treatment, it is important to review the need to switch to face-to-face treatment along with medical treatment and to clearly state the basis for that decision.. The process of not only accepting the patient's statement as is, but also ruling out red flags through additional questionnaires, becomes the core of legal defense.. The most frequent problem area in non-face-to-face treatment is prescriptions.. If repeated prescriptions are made at the patient's request or drugs are prescribed without sufficient confirmation, this may be evaluated as a violation of medical law beyond simple negligence.. In particular, in cases involving narcotics or medicines that may be misused, it may be judged as an immoral medical practice and may lead to license suspension, and if insurance claims are combined, it may be expanded to criminal liability.. Moreover, if a medical record is created or a claim is made even though an actual examination has not occurred, the risk increases even further.. Many of the disputes that arise in practice arise from the good intentions of medical staff.. 'Please prescribe the same medicine as I have always taken it.'This includes cases where a patient's request is accepted or a simple non-face-to-face prescription is given for symptoms that appear to be mild.. However, if the patient's condition is not sufficiently checked during this process, if a problem occurs later, the key issue is not the appropriateness of the prescription, but the 'Whether the examination was sufficient'Go to. In particular, in cases where a serious illness is mistaken for a mild illness, the lack of judgment in switching to face-to-face treatment may be assessed as direct negligence.. Responsibility lies with the medical staff…The key is 'Defensible Care' Non-face-to-face medical treatment is based on a platform, but legal responsibility is not distributed.. Even if an error in transmitting patient information or a system failure occurs, the final medical decision is made by the medical staff.. For example, if your identity is unclear., In cases where it is difficult to determine the condition only through explanations on behalf of the guardian, Cases where it is difficult to make a judgment based on audio alone without video, Or, if the medical examination is cut off due to a connection error, it is advisable to establish standards to guide in-person visits or emergency room visits rather than continuing treatment.. Many medical staff tend to perceive the risk of non-face-to-face treatment as a simple medical accident problem., In reality, administrative and criminal risks often materialize faster than civil risks.. A patient's civil lawsuit takes time depending on proving causality, but, Administrative investigation or local confirmation, Reviews for nursing care benefits can be done much more quickly.. If a claim is made without meeting the requirements for non-face-to-face treatment, it may be evaluated as an unfair claim., This can lead not only to recovery, but also to business suspension or fines.. In particular, if the prescription itself is illegal, even the cost of the drug may be subject to reimbursement, resulting in a significant burden on medical institutions.. In the end, what matters is 'It's dangerous so don't do it'not, 'Let’s create and operate a structure to control legal risks.'is the point. Although it is clear that non-face-to-face treatment needs to be introduced for management reasons,, The premise is to establish safe operating standards.. Therefore, the question medical staff must ask themselves in the era of non-face-to-face treatment is simple.. 'Can you do this treatment?'not, 'Can I legally explain and defend this treatment?'am. Subject to non-face-to-face medical treatment under this standard, paperweight, prescription, record, claim, The entire process, including platform utilization, must be redesigned.. Non-face-to-face medical treatment is an inevitable trend, but, We must keep in mind that unprepared introduction can lead to the most dangerous legal trap for medical staff at any time.. |contribution| Attorney Soyoung Yoon, Daeryun Law Firm [View full article] [Contribution] Fully allowing non-face-to-face medical treatment, ‘legal pitfalls’ that medical staff must be aware of (link)

SJKP, a U.S. subsidiary established by Daeryun Law Firm, announced on the 27th that it has signed a business agreement (MOU) with Horizon M&A Advisor, a U.S. M&A consulting firm, and will strengthen its cross-border mergers and acquisitions and investment advisory capabilities for Korean and U.S. companies. At the signing ceremony, which was held virtually at the SJKP conference room in New York, USA on the 19th, Daeryun CEO Park Dong-il and Horizon M&A Advisor's Managing Director Chris Mo Key officials from both companies, including directors, attended. Horizon M&A Advisor is an M&A consulting firm specializing in the transaction market for small and medium-sized companies in the United States. We provide integrated solutions throughout the entire transaction process, including corporate sale and acquisition advisory, including valuation, establishment of exit strategy, and corporate reorganization prior to sale. Through this agreement, the two companies plan to cooperate with each other in M&A transaction structure design and execution support, financial and legal due diligence collaboration, transaction negotiation strategy and contract document support, joint venture (JV) establishment and strategic alliance advisory, post-transaction integration (PMI) and risk management. Daeryun CEO Park Dong-il said, "The key to success in the global transaction market is legal. “It depends on how well stability and financial strategy are organically combined,” he said. “Through this agreement, we will provide practical and three-dimensional solutions so that our companies can secure growth engines more quickly and safely in the U.S. market.” SJKP, Daeryun’s U.S. subsidiary, which opened in New York in November last year, is currently expanding its range of services beyond its existing strengths such as international disputes, investment, and taxation to technology company M&A, family business succession, and investment advisory for the real estate and energy industries. Reporter Kwon Byeong-seok (bsk730@fnnews.com)[View full article] Daeryun's local branch in the US signed a business agreement with 'Horizon M&A Advisor' (Go here)

New York SJKP, a global partner law firm of Daeryun Law Firm, announced on the 27th that it signed a business agreement (MOU) with global real estate brand 'Sotheby's International Realty'. Through this agreement, both parties decided to join forces to strengthen international real estate transactions and cross-border advisory cooperation. The agreement ceremony was held at SJKP's New York office on the 17th, and key officials from both sides, including CEO Daeryun Park, Vice President Lee Ye-sum, SJKP Director James Meaney, Charlie Oppler, representative of 17 Sotheby's branches in the United States, and Sotheby's New York and New Jersey branch manager Michelle Han. I attended.Sotheby's International Realty is a global real estate network launched in 1976 based on the heritage of Sotheby's, a global auction brand. It handles a wide range of portfolios, from ultra-high-priced residential assets to commercial real estate and investment-purpose assets, and is evaluated as a premium real estate platform that connects high-net-worth individuals and investors around the world. In addition, it is leading the global prime asset market by providing comprehensive services encompassing sales, leasing, and investment advisory by combining local expertise and international networks in each country. In particular, CEO Charlie Oppler is an industry representative who served as president of the National Association of Real Estate Brokers (NAR) in the United States in 2021. It is known to have a vast network and unrivaled expertise in the overall U.S. real estate market. Through this MOU, SJKP plans to expand comprehensive advisory services including purchase, sale, lease, and investment structure review of residential and commercial real estate in major global cities, including the U.S. Through this, Korean companies and individual customers will be provided with real estate transaction advice and local law review at the same time, which will enable safer and more efficient overseas asset transactions. CEO Charlie Oppler said, "Based on Sotheby's global network and local market expertise, we will provide optimized asset management solutions to SJKP customers," and added, "We will cooperate to ensure successful asset acquisition and operation in major cities around the world as well as in the United States." CEO Park Dong-il of Daeryun said, "Overseas real estate transactions are simple." “It must go beyond sales and involve a three-dimensional analysis of contract structure, taxation, and local regulations,” he emphasized, adding, “Through this agreement, we will present practical legal solutions from a cross-border perspective so that customers can manage their assets more stably in the global real estate market.” Meanwhile, SJKP, based at One World Trade Center (1WTC) in New York, is expanding a variety of professional services, including legal, tax, and investment advisory, for domestic and foreign companies and investors wishing to enter the U.S. and resolve international disputes. There is. Eunhye Lee (zhses3@joseilbo.com)[View full article] Daeryun-SJKP, MOU with Sotheby’s International Realty...Strengthening the global real estate sector (Click here)

An employee who was accused of theft and obstruction of business by the CEO of her former workplace for demanding overdue severance pay was cleared of charges. According to the legal community on the 27th, the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office cleared Ms. A, a woman in her 40s who was sent last month on charges of theft and obstruction of business. During the process of leaving the company in 2024, Ms. A copied Hwasa product design files and work reports to a personal external hard drive and failed to hand over work data and company SNS account passwords to her successor. He was accused of interfering with work by using force. However, Mr. A denied all charges. Mr. A refuted that he had transferred all data to the company's PC at the company's request before leaving the company and that the SNS password was also shared with internal employees. Mr. A then claimed, "I reported the company because of continuous non-payment of wages, but I received a complaint 10 months after leaving the company. It was a malicious complaint." The prosecution accepted Mr. A's claim. The prosecution determined that the information stored in the computer cannot be considered property under criminal law because it is not a tangible object, and that even if Mr. A took it, the crime of theft cannot be established because it does not reduce the information itself or reduce the possibility of possession and use of the company. Regarding the charge of obstruction of business, considering that Mr. A moved the data to his successor's PC and that the company requested a handover 10 months after the suspect left the company, the credibility of Mr. A's claim is high. The decision was made. Kim Ji-hyeon, an attorney at Daeryun Law Firm who represented Mr. A, said, “We were able to obtain a good result by actively demonstrating the legal principle that digital data cannot be subject to theft because the original remains intact even if copied, so there is no infringement of possession.” Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] “Give me your password” 10 months after leaving the company... Non-prosecution of employee accused of obstruction of business (link)

Daeryun Law Firm joined hands with GS Cable, a mid-sized manufacturer in the Gyeongnam region, to establish a strategic partnership to revitalize the local economy and support businesses. On the 24th, Daeryun announced that it had signed a business agreement (MOU) with GS Cable with the aim of contributing to the local community and expanding cooperation. At the signing ceremony held at the Daeryun Jinju branch office on the 21st, key officials from both sides, including CEOs Kim Kuk-il, Go Byeong-jun, and Jeong Chan-woo of Daeryun and GS Cable & System CEO Kang Shin-il, attended and discussed cooperation plans. GS Cable & System, which opened in 2007, has a stable business based in Jinju and Sancheong. It is a representative local company that is recording sales. Both sides plan to use Daeryun's legal expertise to eliminate management uncertainties faced by local companies and help them expand their presence in overseas markets. Key cooperation tasks include establishing a legal consulting and compliance system specialized for small and medium-sized companies, planning programs related to local community coexistence and ESG management, and providing legal guidance for entering overseas markets and expanding exports. In addition, the two organizations plan to increase synergy by regularly exchanging industry trends and legal information. Kang Shin-il, CEO of GS Cable & System, expressed his expectations, saying, "This cooperation will be a stepping stone for local companies with technological capabilities to expand into the global market without legal restrictions." Kim Kuk-il, CEO of Daeryun, also emphasized, "We will realize the social value of legal services by supporting sound local partners," and "We will fulfill the role of a law firm as a facilitator to help revitalize exports." Daeryun provides regionally customized legal solutions based on its nationwide network and contributes to revitalizing the local economy through connections with local governments and companies.[View full article] Daeryun Law Firm and GS Cable & System sign a business agreement to strengthen the global competitiveness of local small but strong companies (Click here)

It has been about a month since the revised Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter referred to as the Union Act), also known as the 'Yellow Envelope Act', went into effect. On the surface, the system appears to be settling down, with about 140,000 subcontracted workers requesting negotiations, but the temperature felt by the main contracting companies on site is quite different. In particular, in line with the expansion of user rights under Article 2 of the revised Trade Union Act, the results of the Labor Relations Commission's 'separation of bargaining units' judgment on the subcontractor's union's request for direct bargaining are mixed for each case, and the company's management risk is falling into unpredictable judicial uncertainty. When faced with the subcontractor's union's request for collective bargaining, the main contractor must go through the process of unifying the bargaining channel to decide 'with whom and how to negotiate', and the key issue in this process is the union law. It is a ‘separate bargaining unit’ system stipulated in Article 29-3. Looking at the recent trend of rulings by the Labor Relations Commission, separation of bargaining units is exceptionally cited in cases where significant differences in working conditions such as wage system or working environment between primary and subcontracted workers are proven or when job independence is clear. On the other hand, in cases where there has been a practice of integrating primary and subcontracting in one workplace for negotiation in the past or where the characteristics of the subcontracting union are judged to be reasonable even if they are merged into the existing bargaining unit, the application for separation is strictly dismissed, depending on the specific facts. Legal standards are being applied. The fact that the Labor Relations Commission's judgment results are so mixed suggests that if companies wait and see the situation without a thorough legal review in advance, they may take on fatal risks in the future. If the separation of bargaining units is adopted contrary to the company's intention, enormous administrative costs and confusion in management will occur as the company must individually set up a negotiation table with multiple subcontracting unions. Conversely, if the separation is rejected and bundled into a single large window, the ripple effect of industrial action such as solidarity strikes by subcontractor unions will grow uncontrollably. In other words, regardless of the direction of the decision, the number of cases that companies face all involve significant labor risks. Therefore, prime contract companies should avoid a wait-and-see attitude, relying on the government's optimism shown in the indicators. A company's response strategy should not be passively guided by the Labor Relations Commission's decision, but should focus on building a 'preemptive and objective logic of explanation' to set up a negotiation structure that is advantageous to the company. To this end, the legal and human resources departments must go beyond document review and closely inspect and redesign the situation on site. First, measures to separate work spaces, movement lines, and rest facility use times can be considered as factors that can show differences in working conditions. In addition, special attention must be paid to minimizing the circumstances of direct orders from the primary office that can easily become controversial. It is advisable to avoid accidental on-site work instructions through mobile messengers or text messages, and to prepare communication guidelines for primary and subcontractors and guide them to members. Furthermore, it is a good idea to examine the company's response logic in advance by assuming a hypothetical negotiation request situation with an external expert. In this way, establishing practical guidelines and supplementing expected blind spots in advance is the most realistic alternative to substantially reducing the burden on companies under the current legal system. Since legal judgments may vary depending on the specific circumstances of each individual business, it is appropriate to obtain advice from a legal expert.[View full article] Conflicting decisions on ‘separation of bargaining units’… What is the primary company’s response strategy? (Shortcut)

There are increasing cases of airport arrival halls turning into investigation scenes in an instant upon returning from a pleasant trip. According to statistics from the Korea Customs Service, the detection of drug smuggling by travelers in the first quarter of this year increased by 128% compared to the same period last year. Now, drug smuggling is not just a problem for certain criminal organizations, but has become a realistic threat where even ordinary travelers can be exposed to crime without even realizing it. The tragic story of good citizens being accused of being ‘drug smugglers’ usually starts with an extremely routine request. A typical example is when an acquaintance you have built a close relationship with overseas asks you to “carry just one bag for me because I have too much luggage,” or asks you to deliver a specific item in exchange for financial support for airfare and lodging through SNS. On the outside, it may seem like a simple request or errand, but the moment drugs are discovered at the arrival hall, you can immediately become an accomplice to drug smuggling, a serious crime. The biggest characteristic of cases like this is the urgency of the investigation process. Starting with X-ray reading immediately after entry, detailed baggage inspection, mobile phone digital forensics, and account tracking are carried out simultaneously. Immediately after detection, most people complain of injustice, saying, “I had no idea that the contents were drugs,” but unfortunately, in legal terms, it is very unlikely that such a claim can serve as grounds for acquittal. Our courts broadly recognize ‘intention to fail to carry out’ even if there was no definite knowledge or if the person took the risk of transport despite being able to foresee the risk given the circumstances. In particular, if payment was received even though the source of the goods is unclear, or if the contents were not confirmed even though the delivery method was secret and abnormal, the court considers this as evidence of ‘intention to tolerate the possibility of a crime.’ What is even more dangerous is lying or retracting statements in the early stages of the investigation out of embarrassment. This is seen by investigative agencies as an attempt to conceal a crime, and may become a decisive reason for requesting an arrest warrant. Therefore, it is important to respond logically by quickly organizing objective data such as the specific circumstances of receiving the goods, messenger conversation history, and travel itinerary, rather than emotional complaints. The consistent view of investigative agencies and courts is that drug smuggling is not simply an individual's deviance, but is the actual starting point of all drug crimes that shake the foundation of our community. In fact, according to Article 58 of the Narcotics Control Act, anyone who exports or imports drugs can be sentenced to life imprisonment or more than five years in prison. This means that regardless of whether it is a first offense, the possibility of being sentenced to prison is overwhelmingly high, and it is impossible to expect leniency based on the qualifier of ‘simple participant.’ Park Jeong-gu, a lawyer at the Daeryun Law Firm, said, “In the end, a request to transport another person’s goods of unknown origin under the pretense of a light favor during the entry process or a request to deliver goods in exchange for a large sum beyond common sense is highly likely to pose a serious legal risk in itself.” “If you are caught up in an unexpected incident, securing your right to defense through a legal review by an expert with experience in drug cases before the first statement is recorded is the most realistic response to maintaining a peaceful daily life.”[View full article] Traveler drug smuggling, punishable even if you “don’t know”… Criminal risk starts at the airport (link)

Initial response is mixed due to lack of government guidance... Only CUs with different structures are burdened, and after the implementation of the Yellow Bag Act, the conflict between BGF Retail and the Korea Freight Forwarders Association emerged as a major issue in the distribution industry. The industry is paying attention to the fact that differences in each company's response method in the early stages of implementation, rather than the law itself, contributed to the size and aspect of the conflict. Unlike the overall delivery industry's attempt to manage the situation through procedural responses, some analyzes say that BGF Retail's business structure and initial response choices ultimately increased the management burden. According to the distribution industry and labor circles on the 24th, BGF Logis, a logistics subsidiary of BGF Retail, began working-level negotiations with Korea Freight Workers' Union on the 22nd. It has been 43 days since the implementation of the Yellow Bag Act. This is in contrast to the fact that many of the major companies in the industry that received requests for negotiation began response procedures within the first 10 days or so of the law's enforcement. Coupang Logistics Service (CLS) announced its request for negotiation on March 10, the day the law went into effect. CJ Logistics posted factual notices on the 17th, Lotte Global Logistics and Rosen Express on the 18th, and Hanjin Express on the 19th. The actions of these companies are interpreted as a strategic choice to manage conflicts within the system, independent of legal judgment. However, there are differing interpretations among practitioners regarding the legal meaning of the factual announcement. Ryu Soon-geon, a labor attorney representing Leein Labor Law Firm, explained, "From the employer's perspective, posting a factual notice can serve as evidence that the union has been recognized as a bargaining target. As of now, there are no specific guidelines from the government, so companies will have no choice but to be cautious about whether or not to post a factual notice." Next, the union advised, “If the primary contractor does not respond to the request for negotiation, one option is to file an appeal with the Labor Relations Commission and receive a decision.” Bang In-tae, an attorney at Daeryun Law Firm, said, “The public notice of the request for negotiation itself is nothing more than the implementation of statutory procedures, so it is difficult to view it as a direct recognition of user status.” He added, “In the end, the key is how dependent the worker is on the side claiming to be the employer and provides labor. If the contract structure focuses on working conditions and processes rather than outcomes, there is a high possibility of negotiation obligations regardless of the government’s interpretation, so it is necessary to check the contract in advance.” It is also pointed out that policy uncertainty affected the company’s judgment. Immediately after the enforcement of the law, Minister of Employment and Labor Kim Young-hoon drew a line saying that this cargo solidarity issue was not subject to application, but after the fatal accident occurred, he readjusted his existing position, citing the absence of a communication channel. Minister Kim said, “The main contractor that must engage in negotiations with cargo drivers is BGF Retail, the CU operator,” and also interpreted the cargo union that did not report the establishment of a union, saying, “Even if they are self-employed in form, if they are subordinated in substance, they can be considered workers.” The Central Labor Relations Commission announced that it would prepare guidelines for judging usability at the time of enforcement of the law, but no substantive standards have been presented to date. In the industry, it is assessed that many companies do not fully understand the yellow envelope law and are having difficulty coming up with a response strategy in the absence of clear guidelines. An industry official said, “A significant number of companies lack understanding of the yellow envelope law,” and “They are unable to come up with a clear response plan and are only waiting for government guidance and are closely watching the market situation.” Citing a law professor, academics also point out that “there are opinions that the implementation of the revised law is premature,” and that “the enforcement of the law was rushed ahead at a stage when specific guidelines or judgment standards were not yet mature, causing confusion in the field.” BGF Retail said. Based on the government's initial interpretation of the law, the government chose to wait for the National Labor Relations Commission's decision, but as the conflict continued, the management burden increased. Some see this issue as an example of increased costs due to the delay in choosing the timing of negotiations, rather than a negotiation that was impossible from the beginning, given that negotiations were eventually concluded. As logistics work has been vertically integrated through BGF Logis, this incident is expected to serve as an opportunity to expand the discussion surrounding the actual scope of influence and responsibility of the main contractor to the distribution industry as a whole.[View full article] 'Yellow envelope law for one month' Quiet delivery company... The reason why conflict only increased in CU (Shortcut)

In recent times in our society, inheritance is no longer a problem only for some wealthy individuals. Issues such as property disputes between children, the whereabouts of real estate donated during one's lifetime, and whether or not children's contributions to their parents should be recognized are becoming more and more diverse, and related lawsuits are also increasing explosively. In fact, according to the Supreme Court Judicial Yearbook, lawsuits requesting the return of oil have more than tripled in 10 years, from 590 cases in 2012 to 1,872 cases in 2022. The problem is that as disputes become more routine and complicated, many people are missing the most fundamental key to determining victory or defeat. No matter how intense the emotions or how clear the evidence is, a lawsuit cannot even begin if it does not exceed the ‘time’ threshold set by law. Inheritance disputes often start with emotional conflict, but the legal end is ultimately reached within the ‘legal golden time’ when rights can be exercised. In lawsuits over reserve, the court strictly examines ‘when the right was exercised’ as well as the legitimacy of the right. Article 1117 of the Civil Code stipulates that the right to claim return of reserved portion must be exercised within one year from the date of commencement of inheritance and the date of knowledge of the gift or bequest that must be returned. This regulation is not a simple period limit, but is the primary gateway to determining whether the exercise of rights is legal. In many cases, the battle over the ‘point of recognition’ rather than the amount of contribution becomes the key issue. In particular, the standard of ‘not knowing’ is subjective, so objective proof is very difficult. There are many cases where property transfers between families are not documented, and interpretations differ depending on each person's memory only after a dispute occurs. In the end, the court determines whether or not it is recognized by combining various circumstances rather than determining a specific point in time. Kwak Nae-won, an inheritance lawyer at Daeryun Law Firm, explained, "In this process, it is 'evidence' that determines whether or not you will actually win the case. Even if there is no formal data such as a contract or notarial deed, everyday records such as text messages, account flow, role division among family members, and property management methods serve as a decisive basis for proving the time of recognition. Rather than the fragmentary power of individual data, the core competency of a lawyer is to create a 'logical flow' formed by connecting these circumstances." He continued, "A recent case is a representative example. When the decedent passed away after gifting real estate to a specific child while alive and leaving an intention to bequeath it, other heirs filed a lawsuit claiming infringement of the reserve. The issue was when the plaintiffs knew about the gift." Attorney Kwak Nae-won said, "By closely analyzing past text messages and how they managed their assets during their lifetime, we proved that the plaintiffs had already been aware of the gift for a long time. The content of past conversations, which implied that they had already received everything, served as a decisive clue to support the fact of knowledge. The court determined that the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit after the statute of limitations had expired and dismissed all claims." He went on to say, "The above case shows that a suit for reserve is not simply a matter of contesting whether or not there is more or less property. Regardless of whether the right exists, 'whether it was exercised on time' is a prerequisite for victory. Therefore, in a dispute for reserve, early diagnosis is more important than responding after the fact. The party claiming the right must quickly check the property transfer details immediately after the start of inheritance and calculate the statute of limitations. Conversely, the defending party needs to preemptively secure materials to prove that the other party was already aware of the gift." reported. Attorney Kwak Nae-won said, "Conversations and records between family members tend to disappear as time passes. If a dispute is expected, related data must be systematically organized. The essence of a lawsuit over retained assets is ultimately 'time and proof.' The approach of logically combining accurate facts and evidence within a short period of one year determines actual victory or defeat."[View full article] In a lawsuit over oil reserves, the one-year statute of limitations and evidence determine the outcome (Shortcut)