Press Coverage

The Korean Bar Association is an autonomous organization that protects legal ethics and an organization that represents the self-purification function of all lawyers. However, society is now asking the direction of the sword's point, whether the sword of disciplinary authority given for the original purpose of 'midnight' is really aimed at the public interest or whether it has degenerated into a means of control for the benefit of a specific group. According to Article 91 of the current Bar Act, the Bar Association autonomously carries out the entire process from request for disciplinary action to review and resolution, and the level of sanctions ranges from reprimand to permanent expulsion. Although it is formally notified to the Minister of Justice, institutional concerns are raised in that the actual authority is concentrated in the Bar Association, a private professional organization. The Bar Association's exclusive disciplinary authority is an unusual structure that runs counter to the principle of public responsibility compared to other professions. Doctors are subject to disciplinary action by the Doctors Disciplinary Committee under the Ministry of Health and Welfare, while accountants and tax accountants are subject to disciplinary action by administrative agencies such as the Financial Services Commission and the National Tax Service, respectively. In particular, it is in a contradictory structure in which private organizations themselves decide on the existence or non-existence of public qualifications, with only lawyers, and this has a logical flaw that undermines the general principle of the rule of law that ‘control over qualifications must be by public power.’ The problem is that these structural concerns are not just theoretical. The Korean Bar Association is a political organization led by a directly elected president, and there is an inherent risk that disciplinary power could be used as a means to suppress specific groups or differing opinions. In fact, the Bar Association actively exercised or announced its disciplinary authority in some cases, revealing the absence of an internal control mechanism. The symbolic incident in which this structural risk became a reality was the ‘Rotalk incident’. Based on its internal rules, the Korean Bar Association effectively forced a choice by imposing a fine of up to 3 million won on lawyers who use legal platforms. This was interpreted as a violation of internal regulations, but the media and civil society evaluated it as an abuse of disciplinary power beyond the scope of self-regulation and as an act of disrupting market order in competition in legitimate advertising and services. This issue is not limited to criticism within the legal community. This has already emerged as an important social agenda, with President Lee Jae-myung's pledge to establish an independent lawyer disciplinary body. Disciplinary action against lawyers is not simply a matter within the profession, but a public issue closely linked to constitutional values ​​such as freedom of expression, freedom to practice one's profession, and the public's right to know. Therefore, the improvement of the disciplinary structure must go beyond the level of internal control of the position and be approached as an issue of constitutional legitimacy and democratic responsibility surrounding public qualifications. Therefore, the current structure contains three fatal risks as follows: ① private organizations actually decide whether to deprive public qualifications, ② the criteria for that judgment are based on abstract concepts such as ‘maintaining dignity,’ ③ procedural transparency and external checks are insufficient. This means the possibility of arbitrary abuse of disciplinary power and This leads to the double danger of politicization of the organization. Now is the time to calmly seek institutional reform of the lawyer disciplinary system. It is necessary to disperse some of the disciplinary authority to independent external organizations or administrative agencies, have external personnel participate in the disciplinary committee, and comprehensive provisions such as ‘maintaining dignity’ be more clearly defined by law. Clarity of disciplinary grounds and procedures, predictability, and compliance with the principle of proportionality are most important. Advanced countries under the rule of law have already provided a clear answer to this. In the UK, the Legal Services Regulatory Agency (SRA) and the Bar Standards Board (BSB) are responsible for disciplinary action, and are clearly separated from the Bar Association. In the United States, the Supreme Court of each state also has disciplinary authority, and audits are conducted through independent investigative organizations. The American Bar Association (ABA) is only responsible for establishing codes of ethics and does not intervene in disciplinary action. This is the minimum institutional device to balance autonomy and fairness. Self-regulation is an important device for local organizations to maintain trust in a democratic society. However, the premise is fairness, transparency, and checks and responsibilities on authority. If a functional organization monopolizes the life and death rights of public officials and exercises that power arbitrarily, we end up tolerating “monitors who are not monitored” in the name of the law. If the Bar Association wants to be recognized as the authority of true autonomy, it must quickly step down from its position as a ‘monitor’ and show the decision to accept external checks.[View full article] [Contribution] Is the disciplinary right of the Bar Association under the name of ‘self-regulation’ okay as is? (Shortcut)

The court ruled that a truck owner who is not the owner of the vehicle on paper is also a claimant if he or she has been transferred the right to claim damages from the truck company. On the 4th of last month, the Eastern Branch of the Busan District Court ruled in favor of some of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit for damages filed by two truck owners, including A, against the Korea Freight Truck Transport Association. Person A purchased a cargo truck in 2023 and assigned it to a transportation company, and after that, driver B took over driving the vehicle. He was in charge. Later, in October of the same year, Mr. B suffered an accident while driving when he collided with a cargo vehicle running in the next lane. Accordingly, the two people demanded that the National Trucking and Transport Association, which signed a mutual aid contract for the cargo vehicle in question, pay compensation, including repair costs. However, the lawsuit began when the association refused. The association acknowledged some of the negligence of the truck driver but argued that Mr. A's claim should be dismissed. This is because Mr. A is only the owner of the accident vehicle, and the owner of the car registration certificate is a transportation company, so he cannot claim damages. Mr. A countered that he has the right to claim because he received all claims for damages related to the traffic accident from the transportation company. The court ruled in Mr. A's favor. The court said, "The plaintiff is in the position of a claimant for property damage because he received a claim for damages from the transportation company that owns the vehicle. The accident occurred when the defendant's vehicle suddenly changed direction and did not turn on the turn signal during this process." He continued, "It is reasonable to assume that the defendant's driver is primarily responsible for the accident," adding, "The defendant has an obligation to compensate for damages, including repair costs for the plaintiff's vehicle and compensation to the driver." He added. Attorney Kim Nak-hyeong of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, explained, "The Association claimed the unfairness of the claim by citing a precedent that says, 'The owner of the vehicle, who was entrusted externally by the company that owns the vehicle, acted on behalf of the owner company, and the legal effect belongs to the owner company.'" He added, "Considering this, during the trial process, we received the owner company's intention to transfer the claim for damages, and were able to neutralize the Association's claim." Reporter Kwon Byeong-seok (bsk730@fnnews.com)[View full article] Landlord who received transfer of claim for damages... Law “You have the right to file a claim” (Shortcut)

Advertising solutions and consulting on social media. Brokers providing personal rehabilitation consulting for debtors: “The risk to the debtor is high and it causes social harm.” “Get 90% forgiven through the personal rehabilitation system promoted by the government.” This is an advertising phrase that appears frequently on social media (SNS) such as YouTube and Instagram. Deceptive phrases that promise to reduce the loan burden, such as “Check the forgiveness amount even if you do not plan to revive immediately” or “How to reduce the loan amount by 90% through the government system,” are noticeable. Some advertisements even proudly state that they are the ‘National Debt Relief Support Center’ along with the Taegeuk symbol, the official logo of the Korean government. Thinking that it is a public institution, you go to the website through the link in the advertisement, and for some reason, this prompts you to consult a law firm. Recently, as the Lee Jae-myung administration's bad bank has emerged as a hot potato, personal rehabilitation advertisements are rampant on social media. We are actively promoting our service, saying we will provide ‘solution’ services not only to lawyers but also to those who are not qualified to represent personal rehabilitation. The problem is that solution advertisements that appear frequently recently encourage misuse of personal rehabilitation, claiming that they will ‘enable you to reduce any debt.’ This is a business that stimulates the curiosity of ‘Can I get rid of my debt?’ in a situation where the government is pursuing a bad bank policy of burning delinquent bonds en masse. The identities of those advertising solutions are diverse. Small and medium-sized law firms sometimes advertise directly, and sometimes loan brokers, loan companies, and illegal private finance companies are involved. Although each advertising entity is different, their goal is the same. The goal is to save money by increasing personal rehabilitation benefits. First, loan brokers and loan companies act as brokers. They lure debtors by offering solutions or consulting services. Brokers are responsible for teaching people how to meet personal rehabilitation standards and connecting them to lawyers they have collaborated with. Brokers receive fees from lawyers during this process. There are several problems with this solution sales practice. First of all, it may be illegal. It is a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act for people without a lawyer's license to perform some debt settlement agency work and hand over cases to lawyers in exchange for a fee. Moreover, solutions using brokers also bring disadvantages to the debtor. Typically, the cost of hiring a personal rehabilitation lawyer is 2 to 5 million won. Of this, the broker takes about 20-30% as a commission. From the lawyer's perspective, he or she receives more money from the debtor because he or she has to pay a broker's fee. Above all, the consulting activities of solution brokers pose unexpected risks to the debtor. Brokers whisper that they will negotiate various conditions for the debtor and allow him/her to undergo debt restructuring. They encourage you to lie about how the loan money will be used or to hide some supporting documents. However, according to legal experts, even if you commit fraud after listening to your broker, there is a high possibility that you will be caught during the personal rehabilitation process. If such misconduct is discovered, the responsibility lies entirely with the debtor. Beyond the failure of personal rehabilitation, you can even be accused of deceiving the court. Jeong Il-woo, a responsible attorney at Daeryun Law Firm, said, “Recently, there has been a flood of incorrect information related to personal rehabilitation,” and “the safest way is for the debtor to directly seek out an insolvency lawyer and receive consultation.” In addition, solution sales that occur in the shadows are also harmful to our society. This is because it promotes moral hazard, which means ‘you don’t have to repay the loan.’ In addition, misuse of personal rehabilitation increases social costs. The purpose of the system, which should only be received by those who absolutely need it, is being polluted. Jeong-won Yoon, head of the Personal Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Support Center at the Korea Legal Aid Corporation, said, “You should not use personal rehabilitation just because you do not want to repay the money right away,” and pointed out, “If personal rehabilitation that is not absolutely necessary increases, it eats up public resources and increases social costs.” Reporter Kim Tae-ho (teo@chosunbiz.com)[View full article] [Financial Focus] “Don’t pay off your debt”… As bad banks emerged, illegal personal rehabilitation sales continued on social media (click here)

The court ruled that the decision to not allow the establishment of a livestock farm due to a group of residents' complaints was unfair. According to the legal community on the 2nd, the first administrative department of the Gwangju District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by a man in his 50s, Mr. A, in his 50s, against Goheung-gun, Jeollanam-do, to cancel the construction permit injunction on the 19th of last month. Mr. A submitted an application for a building permit to build a livestock farm to the county in 2023. He was in charge of prior review work in this regard. The county planning subcommittee conveyed its opinion to Mr. A that there were no special problems with the construction of the livestock farm. However, the committee suddenly rejected the motion, saying that an amicable solution was needed due to the series of complaints from nearby residents. Afterwards, the county also disallowed permission on the grounds of 'concerns about damage to the residential and agricultural environment of local residents due to environmental pollution'. Accordingly, Mr. A filed an objection, but it was dismissed, and he eventually filed an administrative lawsuit. During the trial, Mr. A submitted the application. It was argued that it was illegal to restrict construction based solely on collective complaints, even though sufficient review of the environmental pollution prevention measures listed had not been conducted. The court ruled in Mr. A's favor. The court said, "The defendant first presented the fact that the subcommittee's deliberation result was a rejection, and then abstractly presented the objections of neighboring village residents to the construction of a livestock house and the reasons under the national land planning law." It said, "According to the results of the deliberation, the defendant appears to have taken a disposition mainly based on civil complaints that have no basis in the law based on the results of the deliberation." It continued, "The livestock building is far enough away from the village, and the access road does not pass through the village, so the defendant “It appears that the claimed risk of damage is not likely to be significant,” he said. “The defendant does not appear to have sufficiently reviewed the feasibility of the preventive measures submitted by the plaintiff.” Attorney Kim Jun-seong of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, “According to the National Land Planning Act, even if there is a risk of environmental pollution due to development activities, development can be permitted if prevention is possible and attached as a condition of permission.” While Mr. A explained in detail specific evidence and preventive measures to prevent environmental pollution, “The court appears to have accepted Mr. A’s request because the military only vaguely repeated claims to the effect that there would be concerns about environmental pollution,” he explained. Jeong Eui-jin (jej88@ikbc.co.kr)[View full article] Due to group complaints from residents, the establishment of livestock farms is not permitted.. “Illegal disposition” (Shortcut)

Daeryun Law Firm announced on the 2nd that it signed a strategic MOU with the Korea Medical Foundation, a domestic health examination specialist organization. At the signing ceremony held at the Daeryun Seoul headquarters branch office on the 1st, key officials including Daeryun CEO Kim Kuk-il and Korea Medical Foundation Director Gye Won-woo attended. Established in 2005, the Korea Medical Foundation is a non-profit foundation that provides cutting-edge health checkup services centered on a high-end comprehensive checkup center located at IFC in Seoul. We operate an advanced examination system including early diagnosis of brain nerve diseases such as amyloid PET, a medical staff-centered detailed questionnaire and follow-up consultation system, and a mobile-based health management platform. In addition to examinations, we are actively carrying out social contribution and international medical support activities. Based on this, it received the ‘best evaluation’ in the general examination, colon cancer, liver cancer, breast cancer, and cervical cancer categories in the 3rd and 4th period national health examination institutional evaluation conducted by the National Health Insurance Corporation. With this agreement, the two companies plan to form a regular consultative body and carry out various tasks such as ▲ responding to various medical-related incidents and disputes ▲ providing legal solutions for sustainable management of medical institutions ▲ forming a patient rights protection system and legal risk management system ▲ legal advice for overseas expansion. Director Gye Won-woo of the Korea Medical Foundation said, “As trust in medical institutions is built on expertise and transparency, legal partnerships are becoming an essential element,” and added, “Through cooperation with Daeryun, we will complete a patient-centered, safe and responsible medical service environment.” Daeryun CEO Kim Kuk-il emphasized, “Daeryun has outstanding expertise in the field, starting with the medical pharmaceutical group,” and added, “We will provide practical solutions to the legal risks faced by medical institutions and faithfully fulfill our role as a legal partner that supports the public nature and expertise of the foundation. Furthermore, we plan to provide legal advice for overseas expansion of medical businesses.”[View full article] Venture Square - Daeryun Law Firm signs a strategic MOU with the Korea Medical Foundation (Click here) Law Leader - Daeryun Law Firm and the Korea Medical Foundation sign a ‘medical advisory’ MOU (link) Medipana - Daeryun Law Firm signed a ‘medical advisory’ business agreement with the Korea Medical Foundation (Go here) Korea Economic Daily TV - Daeryun Law Firm signs ‘medical advisory’ MOU with Korea Medical Foundation (Go here)

The process of deciding to divorce is painful for everyone. The first question many people ask when considering divorce is, 'Which method should I choose between divorce by agreement or divorce by trial?' The type of divorce goes beyond simple procedural differences and varies depending on whether the parties agree or not and the degree of conflict. Therefore, if you are considering divorce, it is necessary to clearly understand the difference between the two systems. First, if an agreement on divorce is possible between the couple, divorce by agreement is the simplest and fastest method. Rather than examining the cause, such as the reason for the divorce between the parties, the court is closer to checking whether procedural requirements have been met. However, it is not an easy task to end with a consensus on divorce. If specific agreements such as alimony, property division, custody, and child support are not clarified, many cases lead to further disputes. Conversely, if one party does not agree to divorce, or if it is difficult to reach agreement on major issues such as custody and property division, the judicial divorce process must be initiated. For judicial divorce, there must be a civil law cause (e.g., spouse's misconduct, abandonment, grossly unfair treatment, etc.), and the burden of proof lies with the party who filed the lawsuit. This has the disadvantage of being time consuming and costly, but it is also a means of recovering legitimate rights, such as uncovering the other party's hidden assets or claiming compensation by acknowledging fault. In addition, there are many cases where disputes are resolved relatively quickly through mediation. .Divorce is a new starting point for a better life. Therefore, divorce methods and procedures must be carefully selected based on legal strategies and interests, not just emotions. In fact, there is an increasing number of cases where lawsuits are filed again over custody or property division after a divorce by mutual consent. This stems from making a hasty and emotional decision without sufficient legal advice at the time of divorce. If you are contemplating divorce, it is important to carefully consider the method that suits your situation rather than hastily deciding on the procedure. In this process, it may be helpful to consult expert advice to ensure objective perspectives and legal standards.[View full article] [Expert Contribution] How should I choose between divorce by agreement and divorce by trial? (Shortcut)

Providing an integrated solution to strengthen the corporate compliance management system and improve ESG response capabilitiesCEO Kim Kuk-il said, “We will assist in compliance and sustainable operation based on our corporate advisory experience.” We also signed a strategic MOU with the Korea Medical Foundation to preemptively respond to medical legal disputes. Daeryun Law Firm signed an MOU with the Korea Compliance Agency (Korea Compliance Agency) and ESGI (Co., Ltd.) and announced on the 2nd that it will establish a fair trade autonomous compliance program (CP rating) and an integrated ESG response system for companies. It was announced. The signing ceremony held at the Daeryun Seoul headquarters branch office on the 30th of last month was attended by Daeryun CEO Kim Kuk-il, lawyer Son Gye-jun, Korea Compliance Agency Director Lee Jeong-myeong, and ESGI CEO Yong Seok-gwang. The Korea Compliance Agency is a certification body that conducts certification reviews and trains auditor qualifications for corporate anti-corruption, compliance, etc. based on the certification review of management systems established by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). In addition, ESGI is an integrated service company that provides professional knowledge and solutions for realizing ESG management, including corporate ESG consulting, CSDD consulting, and fair trade CP consulting. Through this agreement, Daeryun plans to build an integrated solution to strengthen the company's compliance management system and enhance ESG response capabilities. Specifically, ▲Advice on development of compliance and ethics training programs for executives and employees ▲Advice on sustainable management reports and certification response ▲Advice on legal risks related to ESG management We plan to provide corporate-tailored support services, such as providing preliminary inspections and response manuals. Lee Jeong-myeong, director of the Korea Compliance Agency, said, "Through this MOU, corporate customers will be able to receive a more sophisticated compliance system and practical training at once," and emphasized, "Our risk prevention and response capabilities in the actual operation process will be greatly strengthened." “We expect that cooperation with Daeryun will be the starting point,” said Kim Kuk-il, CEO of Daeryun. “ESG and compliance management are now essential, not optional, when it comes to running a company.” He added, “Based on Daeryun’s corporate advisory experience, we will actively support companies to solve the two challenges of compliance and sustainability at the same time.” Meanwhile, Daeryun operates a corporate legal group and provides support to companies such as establishing ethical management policies, operating compliance programs, internal investigations, and responding to government regulations. We provide general advice on ethical management.[View full article] Sejeong Ilbo - Daeryun Law Firm signs MOU with Korea Compliance Agency and ESGI (Click here) Venture Square - Daeryun Law Firm signs MOU with Korea Compliance Agency and ESGI (Click here) Tax Ilbo - Daeryun signs MOU with Korea Compliance Agency and ESGI (Click here)

The owner of a skin care company in his 30s in Busan was investigated by the police following a report that he was illegally performing skin procedures that only medical professionals can do, but was cleared of charges due to insufficient evidence. According to the legal community on the 2nd, the Busan Yeonje Police Station decided not to forward Mr. A, in his 30s, who was booked on charges of violating the medical law in May. Mr. A has been running a skin care business since September of last year and was accused of performing skin treatments on customers using a device with a 0.2 mm long needle. Mr. A was investigated by the district office and police in February of this year when someone reported to the district office that “the store run by Mr. A is performing skin treatments that only medical professionals can perform and is advertising this on social media.” Under the current law, skin treatments are classified as medical practices, and practicing medicine without a license is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to 50 million won. In the police investigation, Mr. “It was concluded that it was not illegal,” he claimed. As a result of the investigation, the police also determined that the device used by Mr. A could not be determined to be medical, so it could not be considered that he used this device to practice medicine. Mr. A's legal representative, Attorney Son Yun-jeong of the Daeryun Law Firm, said, "Not only as a result of the district office crackdown, but also the public health center that applies the medical law did not conduct an on-site crackdown because they judged that the device used by Mr. A was not a medical device. Also, the same type of device as the device used by Mr. A is classified as a home skin care device and can be purchased by anyone online, and such data was submitted. “He was able to be cleared of charges due to insufficient evidence,” he explained. Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] Skin care company reported for illegal medical practice cleared of charges (Click here)

Last April, a case I handled while working as a litigation aid lawyer at the Seoul High Court resulted in the Constitutional Court ruling that it was unconstitutional. Considering that the Constitutional Court's decision rate of unconstitutionality or non-constitutionality is only about 4.2% of all cases, this decision is even more noteworthy. The origin of the problem was Article 13 of the ‘Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of National Merit, etc.’ (hereinafter referred to as the National Meritorious Persons Act), which contains information on the order of payment of compensation to the bereaved families of persons of national merit. This provision stipulates that when there are two or more survivors of the same rank and there is no agreement between the survivors, compensation is to be paid first to 'the person who mainly supported the person of merit.' However, if even this requirement is not met, compensation is paid to an ‘older person (elderly person)’ in accordance with Article 13, Paragraph 2, Item 3. This 'senior priority' clause was the key issue in the case. The client who was entrusted with the case was the second daughter of a person of national merit. Although she faithfully supported her father for many years, she was unable to reach an agreement with her other siblings about receiving compensation. It was difficult to objectively prove past support. In the end, the client was refused compensation according to the 'senior priority' rule and filed a lawsuit. However, the first trial result was a loss. Afterwards, the client came to see me and we went to the appeal trial together, but the claim was dismissed for the same reason. Believing that there was a problem with the provisions of the law itself, the author persuaded his client to file an appeal with the Supreme Court and request a review of the law's constitutionality. The Constitutional Court ruled that determining the recipient of compensation solely based on a coincidental circumstance such as 'age' violates the principle of equality. This makes it clear that it is against the concept of justice to not be paid compensation just because you are not an elder, even if you have fulfilled your actual duty of support. Due to the nature of constitutional trial cases, citation decisions are extremely rare, and even if a case is won, there are many cases in which there is no direct economic benefit. Nevertheless, the reason why I did not give up on this case until the end was because I believed that it would be an important opportunity to correct the unreasonable system of our society beyond the relief of individual rights. Of course, this decision is another beginning. We hope that this decision will be a turning point in presenting fair and just standards to all bereaved families who may find themselves in similar situations in the future. Small Business Team[View full article] ‘Priority to seniors’ in compensation for people of national merit is unconstitutional… What issues does the lawyer tell you about? (Shortcut)

‘Severely injured’ after being run over by a vehicle… Bus stops after collision, court says, “The plaintiff is more at fault” A driver who was seriously injured while pushing a vehicle with the engine turned off at a gas charging station filed a lawsuit for damages against the owner of the charging station, but lost. The Masan branch of the Changwon District Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim in a lawsuit for damages filed by a man in his 30s, Mr. A, against the owner of the gas charging station, Mr. B, last May. Mr. A was seriously injured while visiting a gas charging station in May of last year. The accident occurred while he was pushing a charging station employee to move a vehicle that was not starting. At the time, the exit from the charging station was on a downhill road, and as the vehicle accelerated, it started heading towards the road, and Mr. A tried to block it late, but it was not enough. In the end, the vehicle stopped only after passing Mr. A, who had fallen, and collided with a bus traveling on the road. Mr. A claimed that the charging station was responsible. They said that they requested to move the vehicle despite knowing that it was a dangerous downhill terrain and did not take proper safety measures. Mr. B refuted this claim. The employee countered that he did not directly order the vehicle to move, and that the accident occurred due to Mr. A's voluntary judgment. The court found that Mr. B was not negligent. The court ruled, “There is room to believe that the charging station staff did not provide sufficient guidance on the slope or risk factors at the site, but the direct cause of the accident is that Mr. A was run over by the vehicle while trying to stop the accelerating vehicle with manpower.” He added, “It is difficult to say that the employee could have predicted the accident, and there is no causal relationship sufficient to recognize legal responsibility between the employee’s actions and the accident.” Attorney Jong-Hoon Han of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. B, said “For liability to compensate for damages to be recognized, there must be a sufficient connection between the wrongful act and the resulting damage,” he said. “By comprehensively considering the likelihood of an accident occurring, the level of employee negligence, and the severity of the damage, etc., the plaintiff’s claim could have been dismissed.” Digital Content Team[View full article] Vehicle stopped at a charging station... Result of ‘major accident’ lawsuit after pushing car with employee (link)