Press Coverage

A man in his 50s who was sent on charges of entering a unisex restroom and peeping into the women's compartment was acquitted. According to the legal community on the 21st, the Chuncheon District Prosecutor's Office decided not to indict Mr. A, who was sent on charges of violating the Special Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes (Invading Public Places for Sexual Purposes) on the 26th of last month due to insufficient evidence. In December of last year, Mr. A peeped at Mr. was charged with Mr. A was arrested as a red-light criminal and handed over to the prosecution with a recommendation for indictment. Mr. A denied the charges. He claimed that he was drunk at the time and that he only used the public restroom because he was not feeling well. Regarding the circumstances of looking into the women's compartment, he said, "While I was dozing in the bathroom, I heard the door to the next compartment open, and as I was about to go out, my legs went numb and I collapsed," and claimed, "At that time, I just happened to bump into Mr. B, and there was no sexual purpose." The prosecution acknowledged that Mr. A tried to look in front of the women's compartment, but it was difficult to conclude that this act alone was intended to satisfy his sexual desires from the time he entered the bathroom. As a result of checking the CCTV, it was confirmed that Mr. A stayed in the bathroom for about 40 minutes, which was judged to be consistent with Mr. A's claim that he fell asleep in the bathroom. The prosecution believed that there was no clear evidence to admit the charges, considering that other customers at the bar also used the restroom. Attorney Jae-young Yoo of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, “For a charge related to trespassing into a public place for sexual purposes to be established, the requirements must be met, such as satisfaction of sexual desire, a place for multiple use, and failure to comply with a request to vacate. Person A can receive a non-indictment by actively proving that he entered the restroom before Person B and that the reason for entering was to solve physiological problems such as vomiting. “There was,” he said. Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] A 50-year-old accused of ‘peeping’ after going to the bathroom while drunk… Not indicted due to insufficient evidence (link)

A man in his 50s who committed litigation fraud by submitting a forged IOU to the court was sentenced to prison. According to the legal community on the 21st, the 2nd criminal division of the Wonju Branch of the Chuncheon District Court sentenced Mr. A, who was sent to trial on charges of attempted fraud and forgery of private documents, to 1 year and 6 months in prison on the 25th of last month. Mr. A borrowed 305 million won in the name of business funds from Mr. B, a former co-worker, in 2017 and then used it. Mr. A submitted a forged IOU to the court and claimed that the debt did not exist, but it was not accepted. Accordingly, Mr. B filed a complaint, claiming that Mr. A had forged supporting documents and used them fraudulently. At the trial, Mr. A argued that "the indictment was filed after the statute of limitations had expired" on charges such as forgery of private documents and that "an acquittal should be pronounced." However, the court did not consider the circumstances of the crime and The court sentenced Mr. A to prison, saying that the nature of the crime was not good considering the method. The court stated the reason for sentencing, saying, "The defendant falsified the loan certificate to avoid a large debt in a civil lawsuit and submitted it as evidence, thereby hindering the proper exercise of judicial power. Among fraud crimes, litigation fraud is an aggravating factor in sentencing." Attorney B's legal representative, Daeryun Gil Se-cheol, said, "Mr. A gave money to Mr. B. “Not only did they not repay, but they submitted false information in a civil lawsuit that had been going on for about four years, wasting unnecessary time and money.” Shin Min-ji (sourminjee@ikbc.co.kr)[View full article] A man in his 50s who did not repay money and even forged an IOU... sentenced to 1 year and 6 months in prison by law (link)

If the jointly developed technology was used alone, a lawsuit would be filed. 'Trade secret infringement' Am I recognized?"It's not illegal" The Supreme Court ruled that the parties must clarify their intentions from the start of the contract. Companies often develop technologies jointly with other companies.. A large company 1·2A representative example is developing production technology for specific parts to be delivered together with car suppliers.. Suppliers maintain amicable relationships with large corporations until technology development is completed and expect to share in profits after delivery.. However, in reality, unexpected problems always arise..By the time development was completed 1tea supplier 2Stop collaborating with tea suppliers and operate independently., or new 2When making final delivery to a large company together with a car supplier, on the other way 2tea supplier 1An example is the case of skipping the car supplier and making the final delivery directly to a large company.. Although significant costs and efforts were invested in technology development,, For companies that are no longer able to produce and sell products, their technology has been stolen..At this time, the victim company sues the offending company. 'Trade secret infringement lawsuit'Can I win if I file a case?? Shouldn’t they at least charge a fee for using the technology?? From the technician's point of view, it is natural to be protected. 'my skills'It was stolen., Can I be protected from the court?? Is it possible to use it unilaterally without the consent of the other party? Which company owns a trade secret jointly developed by two or more companies?? What is the scope of each co-developer's use?? Although the technology belongs jointly to the developers,, In principle, joint developers unless there is a separate agreement 1The court's ruling is that developers can freely use all of the technology without the consent of other developers.(supreme court 2024. 11. 20. sentence 2021all278931, 278948).Let’s substitute it into the above example.. of large corporations 1·2The car supplier worked together to develop trade secret technology and parts., The conclusion is that even if one party betrays the other party and independently produces the relevant parts using trade secrets and then delivers them to a large company, it is not a trade secret infringement.. This is an incomprehensible ruling from the perspective of researchers and developers.. Why did the court make this decision?. At first glance, it is a natural judgment that jointly developed results are jointly owned.. The problem is 'joint attribution'this 'Available range for each developer'The point is that it is not directly related to. Let's take an object as an example.. civil law257Dozing off 'joint ownership'shape again 'share', 'joint oil' and 'total oil'Distinguish by. 'movable property and movable property coincide'If it becomes a composite product 'When it is impossible to distinguish between master and servant of matching movables'In 'share a composite'It is stipulated that. thus Aand BWhen a person creates a composite by combining the items they each had with each other., According to the above regulations, synthetic Aand Bbecomes a share of. Reasons why it is difficult to apply the logic of civil law and patent law Aand BThe provisions of the Civil Code on sharing(civil law262Article to Article270article)Unless there are other circumstances,, Each person can use and profit from the entire composite in proportion to their share.. Aand BIf each person has a half interest in the composite Aand BThis means that you can use and profit from it at half the rate..If we apply this civil law logic to trade secrets, the story is different.. In case of objects AWhile using and profiting Bcannot be used and profited at the same time, Because technology is different.. technology AWhile using Bcan also be used at the same time. Aand BIf civil law sharing regulations are applied to technology shared by Aand BIt must be divided according to the shares held., This conclusion is somewhat unnatural..Regarding this issue 'shared patent'You can also refer to how to use. Our patent law is99Preparation3In port 'If the patent right is jointly owned, each co-owner may implement the patented invention on his/her own without obtaining the consent of the other co-owners, except in cases where it is specifically agreed upon in a contract.'It is stipulated that. When researchers keep techniques secret 'trade secret'Become this, If this is disclosed and registered as property rights, 'patent(or utility model)technology'Therefore, the objects of trade secret technology and patented technology are similar in many ways.. Therefore, the two can be understood in the same context.. If so, the jointly developed technology 'share'In this case, it can be concluded that each sharer can freely use the technology without the consent of other sharers.. However, the above ruling "Share jointly developed research results"It is worth noting again that it was not explicitly determined that. The court is not shared 'joint attribution'There is an intention in using the expression.. therefore 'joint attribution'From the expression "Our court considers joint research and development results to be shared., It was determined that each sharer could use the results at will by applying the sharing provisions of the Patent Act."And you can't jump to conclusions.. It is my personal opinion, but our patent law and patent rights sharing regulations are a reference to Japan's patent law., The problem is that Japanese civil law is different from our civil law. 'joint ownership'the form of 'share', 'joint oil' and 'total oil'The point is that it is not divided by. Ultimately, our patent law 'patent sharing' The provisions of our civil law 'share' Mechanical substitution of regulations is an issue that requires further consideration.. 'protect interests'-'infringement regulation' The Supreme Court sees it differently. Then, for what reason does the court "Co-developers can freely use co-owned technology without the consent of other developers."Did you decide that? The court does not protect the rights holders 'agent(infringer) regulation'The above problem was judged from the perspective of. This is what the Constitutional Court said in the past "The Unfair Competition Prevention Act is well known., in other words, Since the goal is to individually and specifically regulate activities that may cause confusion with widely known signs, the problem is limiting the scope of regulation rather than the scope of protection."(Constitutional Court2001. 9. 27. Heonba77 reference)It can be understood in the same context as the judgment that.Looking at the previous Supreme Court ruling, "Even in the case where two people jointly hold a trade secret, if any of the holders has an obligation to keep the trade secret as a secret to other holders due to contractual relationships, etc., uses or discloses the trade secret for the purpose of obtaining unfair profits or causing damage to the other holders, (la)This may constitute an act of infringement of trade secrets.. (omission) How to use the technical information in this case, which is a trade secret jointly held by the plaintiff and the defendant, Since there is no separate agreement regarding restrictions on use, etc., It cannot be said that the defendant must use the technical information in this case only to manufacture products supplied to the plaintiff or that it has an obligation to use it with the plaintiff's consent."(above Supreme Court decision)and said. Ultimately, the court 'Whose Rights Should Be Protected??'not 'Is the behavior in question subject to regulation??'It was decided that.About the above ruling "Aren't protecting the interests of rights holders and regulating the actions of infringers ultimately the same thing??"You can think. However, in commonly used joint research and development agreements, "Share research results"And it is often written simply., Considering that there are quite a few cases, it is judged to be very important to protect the rights holder's interests and regulate the infringer's actions.. Based on what was explained above, the contract "The results of joint development are shared"If this is written or not written at all, it is very likely that legal disputes unintentional by the developer will arise in the future.. "Shared development technology is shared"By signing a contract that states "Jointly developed technology can be freely used by the other party without permission."There are probably not many researchers and developers who are aware that they are agreeing with the contents of.In order to use and profit from the results in accordance with the intent at the time of first entering into a joint development contract, a clear contract that meets the parties' wishes must be established first.. The assistance of legal experts is also essential to prevent disputes from occurring.. [View full article] “It’s a technology we created together…” Is betrayal legal? [Daeryun’s Biz law forum] (Shortcut)

Attorney Daeryun Lee Il-hyung "steadily strengthened..Internal whistleblowing is the most common,Clues vary.-Multi-agency cooperation becomes routine"'HIRA prescription data analysis, Expected to use various investigative techniques, including use of tax investigation data" Regarding the rebate issue, CSO Introduction of reporting system, A series of rebate incidents occurred, And the new government's 'Pharmaceutical Industry Rebates' Special crackdown notice(2025year 7~10month)Tensions are increasing in the pharmaceutical and medical device industry as these overlap.. In this regard, the author 2025year 6The overall rebate regulation was covered in a monthly article in the Pharmaceutical Newspaper.. This time for practitioners 2015Summary of major cases related to rebates from 2008 to the recent past., Let’s take a look at the implications.. 1. 2015year Jhospital incident - Rebate using direct wholesale JThe hospital incident involved the hospital chairman, etc. 46The name is so-called ‘Direct wholesale’While operating 2011since 2015Pharmaceutical companies by year 18Rebate from anywhere 10This is a case where billions of won were received.. These are ‘Direct wholesale’and operates a pharmaceutical company and 'unit price contract'I received a rebate by signing a contract and pocketing the difference in drug price discount.. Meanwhile, in this case, clues to the investigation(Background on how the investigation began)go ‘the former’(Hospital direct wholesaler)It is unique in that it was reported by a pharmaceutical company employee who could not endure the abuse of power.. Another unusual thing is that the criminal and administrative measures were different.. The prosecution ‘The rebate is a small amount or the salesperson's personal deviant behavior’The pharmaceutical company was not indicted, including deferred prosecution, on the grounds that it appeared to be. However, this was also a controversial case as the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety announced that it would make its own judgment and take administrative action against some pharmaceutical companies.. 2. 2016year Nfour incident - Variant rebate using academic journals Nlive 2011since 2016Until 2018, we used medical journals and academic journals to hold round-table meetings in the name of advertising expenses and provide medicines to doctors. 25He was indicted on charges of providing bribes worth hundreds of millions of won.. The investigation into this case began with the revelation of an employee of a medical magazine., The investigation began in earnest with the Seoul Western District Prosecutors' Office conducting a search and seizure operation.. The prosecution ‘Roundtable discussions and academic journal production’In the end 'Variant Rebate' He claimed that, At the trial, controversy continued over whether there was organized collusion and recognition of illegality.. What is noteworthy about this case is that relatively heavy sentences were sentenced to working-level officials and professional academic journals., NThe company executives were declared not guilty and exempted.. Prosecutors claimed it was an organized kickback case at the company level, but, The court is a working group(PM) It was judged that there was insufficient evidence that executives or department heads were specifically reported to or were involved in the act.. In addition, some kickback activities were exempted as the statute of limitations had expired., He acknowledged that there was a possibility that the defendants were not aware of the illegality.. In particular, in the field of rare diseases and anticancer drugs, the need for academic events to improve disease awareness was also taken into consideration.. 3. 2018year ‘5dog pharmaceutical company’ case - Multi-agency joint investigation 2018year 9In January, the Board of Audit and Inspection conducted its own audit of the results of the integrated corporate and individual investigation by the Seoul Regional Tax Office., 5Total number of pharmaceutical companies 374After confirming the suspicion of providing monetary and in-kind kickbacks worth hundreds of millions of won to doctors and pharmacists., Ministry of Food and Drug Safety(Ministry of Food and Drug Safety)The need for investigation was notified to. Accordingly, the Central Investigation Team under the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety(Joongjodan)this 2018year 12month DThe investigation began in earnest with a search and seizure of the company's headquarters.. This incident ‘National Tax Service tax investigation → Board of Audit and Inspection Auditor → Ministry of Food and Drug Safety investigation → Sent to prosecution’It is characteristic in that it is a case of rebate detection linked to multiple institutions leading to. In addition, the Board of Audit and Inspection analyzes tax audit results to detect kickback suspicions and, It is noteworthy that the investigation was initiated after notification to the relevant agencies.. 4. 2024year Kpharmaceutical, 2025year DRecent pharmaceutical incidents 2024years and 2025There was also a rebate-related incident in 2012.. However, in both cases, the company denies the charges., As the facts have not been confirmed, I do not think it is appropriate to make specific comments.. Therefore, we would like to replace the above incidents with other press releases.. 5. 2024year medical device company GCompany case medical device company Glive 2016since 2022Drug-eluting stents for coronary arteries by(DES) Nationwide to expand sales 54gun in dog hospital 37Clinical research expenses worth billions of won, Academic activity fees, He was caught by the Fair Trade Commission on charges of providing advertising expenses..Gthanks DES Sales are 2016year 3From 100 million won 2022year 49In billions of won 16increased by more than twofold, Of these 90% It was confirmed that the above incident occurred at a hospital that had a rebate agreement.. The Fair Trade Commission 2024year GWith a correction order to Sasa 2100 million 8,700A fine of 10,000 won was imposed.. It is well known that some rebate practices exist in the medical device industry., Typically, its scale was relatively small compared to pharmaceutical companies.. However, in this case, despite being a medical device company, the rebate amount was relatively large., It is noteworthy that sanctions were imposed by the Fair Trade Commission, not by an investigative agency.. 5. Implications There were other big and small rebate incidents, but we ask for your understanding that we cannot tell you all about them due to space limitations.. If I get the chance, I will tell you more about the cases.. one side, If we consider the series of events, the following flow can be captured.. first, clues to investigation(Reasons for starting an investigation)As ‘whistle blowing’This is still the most.second, However, the clues in the above investigation are becoming more diverse..third, Multi-agency cooperation is becoming routine.fourth, In the future, HIRA's prescription data will be analyzed, It is expected that various investigative techniques will be used, including the use of tax investigation data..fifth, As I said in the previous article,, Government regulations continue to be strengthened. And it is expected that rebate regulations will continue to be strengthened in the future.. Summarizing the above, in the future ‘compliance’ The importance is bound to continue to grow., The industry also needs to prepare for this.. on the other hand, If you look closely at the cases above, the number of cases where the charges were acquitted is not less than you might think.. Therefore, if you are being unfairly misunderstood about rebates,, I would also like to tell you that there is an opportunity to resolve these difficulties if sufficient explanation is provided during the future investigation process.. [View full article] [Contribution] Collection of rebate investigation cases for pharmaceutical and medical device companies and implications (link)

Enhancing customer service quality through online communication programs Management CEO Kook-il Kim “‘customer satisfaction’This top management task” Daeryun Law Firm recently opened a new facility where dedicated lawyers and employees can communicate with clients in real time for each case. ‘online communication program’released. It is part of a policy to strengthen customer service..establishment 9Domestic sales based on sales in 1 year 10Daeryun, who has risen to the ranks of major law firms, has been ‘Communication with customers’have been working hard on. In operation since last year ‘Customer Satisfaction Center’is one of the results. The reaction was also hot.Daeryun Law Firm did not rest here.. Kook-il Kim, CEO, Attorney at Law(Judicial Research and Training Institute 24energy)Is “We have made efforts in many ways to ensure smooth communication with customers., There were unavoidable physical limitations.”said. Previously, clients had to call directly to talk to a lawyer or, If a lawyer attends a trial or interview, If you cannot answer the phone due to a consultation, etc., you must communicate with the team in charge..CEO Kook-il Kim “I couldn't miss even the smallest gap.. I wanted to provide a window where clients could connect with lawyers anytime, anywhere.”He revealed the reason for launching a dedicated online communication program..In addition, Daeryun ‘lawyer liability system’We are also working hard to improve our internal system to improve the quality of legal services, including strengthening. It further clarifies the scope of duties and responsibilities of lawyers surrounding case performance..Below is a Q&A with CEO Kim Kuk-il, a lawyer..Q. One of the hottest topics in the legal industry this year is ‘Daeryun's growth’It seems like. This is because it is one of the few law firms that has grown rapidly in the current legal market where survival is a concern., past 9How do you evaluate Daeryun’s progress over the years??CEO Kook-il Kim(Kim below) : From the beginning of its establishment, Daeryun ‘differentiation strategy’put forward. The domestic legal market has been operated in a closed structure for a long time.. First of all, visiting the law firm itself was not easy.. Especially for rural residents, I had to go directly to Seoul to use the services of a large law firm.. It was also difficult to obtain information surrounding the legal services provided by law firms.. Daeryun wanted to destroy all of this.. The establishment of branch offices throughout the country was also aimed at reaching customers first..The customer service center was also created with a similar purpose.. We want to improve everything without missing the stories of customers who actually used Daeryun.. Like this only ‘consumer’I think there has been a good response because we have been providing legal services with only one eye on it..Q. Looking at the newly established communication channel,, Here are some interesting points. Literally a lawyer and a client, I guess this means creating a group communication room between the employees in charge, right??seaweed : Yes. Daeryun was the first large law firm to actively communicate with clients by establishing a separate customer satisfaction center and customer management team.. Collect all customer feedback that occurs during the service process, Based on this, it was a way to find ways to improve service..nevertheless, I thought there might be some clients who feel inadequate.. To communicate with lawyers, you have to make a phone call., If lawyers are overworked, they may unintentionally lose contact with their clients..The newly created online communication program is based on online messenger and, Dedicated lawyers, staff, and clients participate simultaneously for each case.. You can also check the progress of the incident in real time., You can also look into related document files.. By establishing a communication channel, anyone can receive quality legal services on a regular basis if they wish.. It is expected that a faster response will be possible even in emergency situations..Q. ‘lawyer liability system’Please explain in detail.seaweed : actually ‘lawyer liability system’This is a guideline established from the beginning of Daeryun’s establishment.. Depending on the level of difficulty, the case can be divided into independent and collegial divisions., Specialized group, If allocated to a special department, etc., The existing method was for members of the department to work together as a team under the direction of the person in charge to handle the case..However, the situation has recently changed as the number of clients entrusting their cases to Daeryun has increased explosively.. This is because it has become realistically difficult for high-ranking management lawyers, such as representative lawyers, to directly manage all cases.. As clients’ expectations are rising,, The quality of legal services had to be further improved.. To achieve this, it was necessary to refine the system once again., Responsibility management has been strengthened.. Writing and Attending Trial, The scope of duties and responsibilities surrounding the overall activities required to carry out the case, including communication with the client, has been clarified..Judgment/Inspection, Lawyers with experience such as police officers are no exception.. It is usually assumed that lawyers with this experience will not practice.. In Daeryun, the lawyer is in charge of the actual writing process and the trial process..Q. What is the value that Daeryun ultimately pursues??seaweed : Competition alone can no longer support healthy market growth.. In the end, aren’t legal services solving people’s problems?. Therefore, the consumer must be the center..Lawyers must also have a public mission.. The same goes for law firms.. This is especially true for larger law firms.. There is a need to jointly consider ways to improve the quality of legal services and develop the domestic legal market..Daeryun has been studying the law firm systems of advanced countries such as the United States for a long time and applying them to the domestic market.. These efforts will continue in the future. Providing quality legal services to consumers, We will do our best to develop the domestic legal market..[Reporter Son Dong-wook of Lawleader twson@lawleader.co.kr] [View full article] Daeryun launches online communication program between lawyers and clients... “We will communicate flawlessly” (Shortcut)

Strengthening communication with working-level staff in charge of cases, 'responsibility-centered' law firm operation system in full swing Daeryun "Customer-centered communication and responsibility core values" Focus on building an advanced legal service model Daeryun Law Firm announced that it will strengthen customer service by launching an online communication program that allows clients and lawyers to communicate directly. Daeryun recently launched an online communication program and began work on opening a communication room for each case received by the firm from the beginning of this month. The communication room, which is based on an online messenger, is attended by a team of lawyers and staff in charge of each case. Previously, in order to communicate with the lawyer, the client had to call the lawyer directly or call the team in charge if the lawyer was unable to answer the phone due to a trial, meeting, or consultation. However, the newly released online communication program allows real-time Q&A as well as checking case-related documents. It is expected that a quick response will be possible even in emergency situations. Daeryun's policy is to break physical limitations and increase customer trust through these communication channels. Previously, Daeryun has prepared various systems to increase customer convenience, such as installing and operating a customer satisfaction center. A Daeryun official said, "If the existing customer satisfaction center was a method of constantly communicating customer inconveniences that may occur during the service provision process and regularly receiving and listening to requests, satisfaction, and improvements from customers, with the launch of this online communication program, it can be conveniently used in real time, anytime, anywhere. “We are now able to communicate,” he said. Daeryun is also accelerating the maintenance of its internal system, including strengthening the ‘lawyer responsibility system.’ The existing lawyer responsibility system was operated in a way that, depending on the difficulty of the case, assigned to a single department, settlement department, specialized group, or special department, the members of each department worked as a team under the direction of the director to handle the case. While strengthening the lawyer responsibility system, the scope of duties and responsibilities surrounding overall activities necessary for case performance, such as writing, attending trial, and communicating with clients, were made clearer. This is the result of considering the situation in which the number of cases has increased significantly recently, making it practically impossible for high-ranking management lawyers, such as representative lawyers, to manage all cases. In order to provide higher quality legal services than before, opinions were raised that the system needed to be strengthened, so it was decided to strengthen responsibility management. Daeryun CEO Kim Kuk-il said, “In the case of the lawyer responsibility system, it is actually a culture that has been implemented since the beginning of the corporation.” “As it is a sensitive field that deals with life and rights, securing trust in the service is more important than anything else,” he said, adding, “We will continue to improve the system to increase customer convenience and satisfaction and create an advanced legal service model.” Busan reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] Seoul Shinmun - Daeryun Law Firm innovates legal services on two axes: ‘Strengthening Communication and Responsibility’ (Click here) Sports Seoul - Daeryun Law Firm begins to innovate legal services on the two axes of ‘strengthening communication and responsibility’ (Click here) Jose Ilbo - Daeryun Law Firm innovates legal services on the two axes of ‘strengthening communication and responsibility’ (link) Tax and Finance News - Daeryun, client and lawyer communicate frequently... Group leader is responsible for ‘Important/Consensual Cases’ (Shortcut)

After being reported to the Fair Trade Commission for habitual abuse of power, including non-payment of payment, the retaliation lawsuit court said, "It is difficult to determine the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding incorporation." The principal contractor, who was reported by a subcontractor for habitual abuse of power and non-payment, filed a retaliation lawsuit and claimed ownership of the subcontractor, but it was not accepted. On the 20th of last month, the Seoul Southern District Court ruled that Company A, an electronic communication device seller, filed a lawsuit against Company B, a mechanical parts manufacturing subcontractor, in the retained earnings lawsuit. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed in the claim lawsuit. Retained earnings refer to surplus based on profits earned from corporate business activities. Company A signed a parts manufacturing contract with Company B in 2008 and continued the transaction for several years. Later, in 2016, Company A signed an exclusive contract with Company B due to business expansion. Accordingly, Company A received a certain fee from Company B and provided the necessary equipment for parts production. Company B reorganized the facilities in the factory. It supplied machine parts to Company A. However, Company A continued to abuse its power by repeatedly failing to pay to Company B under the pretext of business support. In the end, around February 2024, Company B reported Company A to the Fair Trade Commission for unfair subcontracting practices. After reporting, Company A suddenly filed a lawsuit claiming that ‘Company B is a subsidiary of Company A.’ Company A said, “The representative of Company B receives a salary from Company A, and is the nominal representative. He claimed, "We have an obligation to pay KRW 1.7 billion in retained earnings generated by Company B from 2016 to 2023." In response, Company B claimed that it is an independent business and has no relationship with Company A other than a subcontract. It emphasized that it received a large order from Company A, but suffered extreme economic difficulties as the payment was not paid on time. The court said it is difficult to say that there was an agreement between the two companies regarding the incorporation of the business. I decided. The court ruled, "It is true that the plaintiff provided some economic and human convenience to the defendant's business operation and business performance, but there is no basis to admit that there was an agreement between them to return to the plaintiff the retained earnings generated by the defendant's operation." Kwak Nae-won, lawyer at Daeryun Law Firm, who represented company B, said, "Company A claimed that company B was its subsidiary for reasons such as the purchase of machinery. However, this support was not provided free of charge, and hundreds of millions of won were spent. He explained, "Company B believed in Company A's promise to increase orders and took the risk of expanding its business. Company A claimed that Company B's sales increased significantly due to its business support, but Company A's other subcontractors also experienced increased sales during that period, and it was not a preferential treatment for Company B or an in-house factory, but rather a typical pattern of subcontracting during Company A's business expansion period." Attorney Kwak added, “Company A hired one of the top three domestic law firms, so the response was difficult, but we were able to win the case after proving Company A’s retaliation for reporting to the Fair Trade Commission through legal interpretation,” he said. Shin Min-ji (sourminjee@ikbc.co.kr)[View full article] “Now it’s my company.” The main contractor was trying to take over the subcontractors.. What is the court’s decision? (Shortcut)

Workers at childcare and welfare facilities who have to care for a large number of children in one space face dilemmas every day. This is because actions taken to protect a large number of children may be seen as ‘emotional abuse’ against a specific child. In particular, the most embarrassing moment is when a child needs ‘discipline’. Due to the nature of group living, one child's problematic behavior can have a significant impact on other children, so appropriate restraint is essential. Sometimes it is necessary to separate children from other children. The problem is that such physical restraint and separation can be considered another form of child abuse. A recent case I took on also began in this dilemmatic situation. Client A was a veteran childcare worker who had worked at a child welfare facility for several years. At the facility where Mr. A was working, group B, a child suffering from severe intellectual disability and ADHD, was living with him. The problem was that Group B continued to engage in unexpected behavior, such as yelling or throwing objects. On the day of the incident, Group B also acted threateningly towards other children, so the client briefly separated Group B into a separate space to minimize damage. However, due to this action, Mr. A became a suspect of child abuse. According to Article 17, Paragraph 5 of the Child Welfare Act, no one may commit an act of emotional abuse that harms a child's mental health and development. If you violate this, you may be subject to ‘imprisonment of up to 5 years or a fine of up to 50 million won.’ In particular, the situation becomes more serious when workers at childcare facilities, rather than ordinary people, are involved in related charges. The charge applied is changed to ‘violation of the Special Act on the Punishment of Child Abuse Crimes, etc.’, and the possibility of aggravated punishment is bound to increase. The defense team, including the author, focused on proving that Mr. A’s actions were not ‘abuse’ intended to harm the child, but were ‘legitimate disciplinary and protective measures’ to protect all other children. Simply looking at the fact that the child was separated could be misleading, so we tried to convincingly explain the motive and purpose of the act, as well as the urgent situation at the time. First of all, we made it clear that Mr. A's actions were aimed at ‘protecting’ other children from violent situations. In addition, it was true that Group B was separated for nearly 30 minutes, but the door was not locked, and it was argued that this was the minimum amount of physical restraint to ensure the safety of other children at the time. In addition, Group B also emphasized that unilateral abuse did not occur, based on the fact that he usually showed a strong bond with the client. The investigative agency also accepted this claim and was able to close the case with a non-indictment. As in the case above, measures for everyone can be seen as abuse to one child. If you face a legal problem with a similar dilemma, you must prepare objective evidence and legal arguments to prove that your actions were a legitimate protective measure. It is most important to systematically explain the legitimate purpose and background of one's actions with the help of a legal expert from the early stage.[View full article] Laurider - Legal dilemma of emotional child abuse...The main issues according to the lawyer are (Go to) Korea Law Daily - Emotional child abuse, legal dilemma of discipline and separation measures... The main issues discussed by lawyers are (Go to)

An investor who had handed over 1 billion won worth of money based on the promise of 'principal guarantee' and was in danger of not getting it back recovered most of his investment after a legal battle. On the 13th of last month, the Seoul Southern District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by A, a man in his 30s, against his acquaintance B on the 13th, saying, "The defendant should pay the plaintiff about 1.483 billion won and delay damages for the same." In 2022, a total of 1.18 billion won was given to Mr. B for cryptocurrency investment and fund lending. However, contrary to his original promise to guarantee principal, Mr. B repeatedly postponed repayment. Afterwards, Mr. B wrote an additional memorandum of performance and agreement for Mr. A, but the repayment was never made. Accordingly, Mr. A filed a criminal complaint against Mr. B and also filed a civil suit. Mr. B claimed that he was only an intermediate agent. At the same time, he emphasized that Mr. A violated the ‘duty of cooperation’ in the agreement by suing him for violating the Special Police Act. If repayment was not made, it was decided to set up a mortgage of 1.5 billion won to Mr. A using the Cambodian land owned by Mr. B as collateral, but the intention was that even this had become impossible due to the criminal complaint. On the other hand, the court accepted most of Mr. A's claims. The court explained, "There is no basis to believe that repayment was delayed due to the plaintiff's complaint, and since the defendant clearly stated in the agreement that he would take responsibility directly, we cannot accept the claim that he was a simple introducer." However, the portion of the agreed interest exceeding 20% per annum, the legal maximum interest rate, was deemed invalid and ruled to pay approximately KRW 1.483 billion excluding this amount. Kim Won-sang, a lawyer at Daeryun Law Firm who served as Mr. A's legal representative, said, “The defendant spoke as if the plaintiff's obligation to cooperate was a prerequisite for a refund, but he actively clarified that this was an argument that changed the relationship over time.” He added, “It was not a verbal promise, but a document containing the specific amount and intention to repay, which was the defendant's “It was used as conclusive evidence to prove payment obligations, leading to good results,” he said. Reporter Kwon Byeong-seok (bsk730@fnnews.com)[View full article] Claims ‘no liability’ even after writing 1.5 billion won agreement... Court says “Handwritten signature, responsibility is clear” (Shortcut)

We examine the impact of the Commercial Act amendments on corporate management. Among the core contents of the commercial law amendment, the so-called '3% rule', which limits the influence of major shareholders when appointing and dismissing audit committee members, is scheduled to go into effect in July next year. The 3% rule contains the intention to reduce the influence of major shareholders and strengthen the monitoring function of management. The legal community seems to agree with this purpose, but there are concerns that companies will inevitably need to prepare all-round countermeasures, from securing the expertise of audit committee members to securing favorable shares to defend management rights. According to the legal community on the 17th, the 3% rule for audit committee members (Article 542-12 of the Commercial Act) is expected to play a positive role in improving corporate governance. Previously, when electing and dismissing audit committee members who are outside directors, the 'individual 3% rule' was applied, which allowed voting rights of 3% each without adding the stocks held by the largest shareholder and the stocks owned by specially related persons, and when electing and dismissing audit committee members who were inside directors, the 'combined 3% rule' was reflected, which recognizes voting rights of up to 3% in total. However, in the revised bill, regardless of whether inside or outside directors, the largest shareholder and specially related persons are allowed to exercise voting rights of up to 3%. Voting rights were combined and unified at 3%. It has become difficult to appoint audit committee members that suit the tastes of controlling shareholders. Seunggyu Byun, an attorney at law firm Seum, explained, “The influence of major shareholders on the audit committee is expected to weaken and the supervisory function of the audit committee will be strengthened.” Attorney Lim Dong-han of Dongin Law Firm said, "It will contribute to establishing a sound governance structure by strengthening the objective monitoring function of the audit committee. It is expected to play a positive role in protecting shareholder rights and interests by increasing the possibility of appointing audit committee candidates recommended by minority shareholders." Shin Jong-su, attorney at Daeryun Law Firm, said, "It will be able to supplement accounting transparency and internal checks." There is a need to secure the expertise of audit committee members and transparent disclosure of the decision-making process. However, it is pointed out that it may be difficult to secure appropriate audit committee members as the exercise of voting rights by the largest shareholder is restricted. Kim Ji-ho, a lawyer at Lin Law Firm (Lihan), said, "There is a concern that a person recommended by a minority shareholder will be appointed as an audit committee member even if he or she lacks expertise in the relevant industry or audit work," and added, "In particular, there is a possibility that sensitive internal information shared with the board of directors may be leaked to the outside." In addition, Attorney Shin, who mentioned the possibility of failing to meet the quorum when electing or dismissing audit members due to the expanded application of the 3% rule, pointed out that "confusion is expected in practice." In addition, Attorney Lim said, "The decision-making process of the audit committee may become more complicated and the time required for this may increase excessively." He added, "In addition, there is a risk that hostile M&A forces such as foreign private equity funds or activist funds will take over the audit committee to avoid the 3% rule." “It has grown,” he pointed out. As many changes are expected in the business environment of companies, it is necessary to review countermeasures along with revising the Articles of Incorporation to reflect the amendments. First, secure a pool of audit committee candidates and strengthen their capabilities. Attorney Lim emphasized, "We need to discover and secure qualified candidates in advance and prepare training programs to develop their abilities." Attorney Kim said, "It is important to secure the expertise of audit committee members by strengthening the qualifications for audit committee members in the Articles of Incorporation," and added, "We must strive to appoint people with expertise and a willingness to protect corporate value by strengthening shareholder communication and expanding corporate information session (IR) activities." He added that there is a need to prevent concerns from minority shareholders by transparently disclosing information on the audit committee appointment process and decision-making. Among the commonly proposed countermeasures, there was also mention of the need to increase communication with friendly shareholders to protect the management rights of the largest shareholder. Attorney Yoo Seok-hyeon of the law firm Mission said, “The largest shareholder must make more efforts to communicate and secure power of attorney with friendly shareholders who are not related parties at a legal level.” Attorney Shin said, "In case the majority shareholder is unable to clearly appoint an audit committee member due to the 3% rule, we must seek ways to secure friendly shares and cooperate with minority shareholders, and companies with a distributed governance structure must also prepare a response strategy to proxy competition in advance." Reporter Park Seon-woo (closely@bloter.net)[View full article] [Aftermath of the Commercial Act Amendment] The ‘3% rule’ reduces the influence of major shareholders… Companies’ ‘calculation method’ has become more complicated (Shortcut)