Press Coverage

Focusing on corporate needs, maintaining existing business, and risk management "Presenting a strategy based on experience in arbitration, litigation, and asset execution" As geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran are increasing and uncertainty in the global economy is deepening, Daeryun Law Firm has joined hands with SJKP, a local law firm in the United States, to establish an all-round response system. The two companies plan to form a 'global complex crisis response task force' that includes the risk of war with Iran, and provide practical services that go beyond simple advice to actual dispute resolution and execution. In order to respond to this incident, Daeryun brought to the forefront American lawyers with brilliant experience. Led by Son Dong-hoo, an American lawyer with more than 10 years of litigation experience, Won Won-yeon, an American lawyer who has performed large-scale international commercial arbitration and ISDS (investor-state dispute resolution) at large domestic law firms such as Kim & Chang, Kwangjang, and Sejong, joined the team. In addition, attorney James Meaney with 20 years of practical experience, attorney Bryce Robbins, an expert in criminal risk and trade regulations, and attorney Dominica Peko, who is a former assistant prosecutor at the Brooklyn District Prosecutors' Office and is well versed in marine insurance disputes, joined the team. Add strength. SJKP, a collaborating law firm, has unrivaled practical capabilities in cross-border (cross-border transaction) disputes, force majeure clause interpretation, and maritime transportation, so synergy between the two companies is expected. Daeryun and SJKP analyzed that the needs of companies have recently been focused on 'maintaining existing businesses' and 'risk management' rather than new investments. As high oil prices and supply chain instability prolong, issues directly related to survival, such as corporate restructuring, workforce reduction, and bankruptcy, are frequently occurring. What is particularly noteworthy is that the demand for ‘compulsory execution’ procedures, such as seizure or lien execution to recover debt, is rapidly increasing. The two companies not only review the application of force majeure in cases of non-compliance with contracts due to geopolitical variables, but also deal with sanctions (IEEPA) and export control issues. The core strategy of this task force is to not only stop at simple legal interpretation, but to respond comprehensively to overseas asset tracking and actual execution. It also provides precise guidance on maritime transportation disruptions and insurance disputes that will be brought about by tensions in the Strait of Hormuz. As the battle over who is responsible for transportation delays and cargo losses is expected to intensify, we plan to provide international dispute resolution solutions that go beyond the laws of a single country. A Daeryun official said, "In a global economic crisis, there are increasing cases where conflicts of interest between companies lead to hostile takeovers or M&A disputes. Based on our experience in integrated response encompassing not only arbitration and litigation, but also asset execution, we are developing a strategy focused on solving real problems to help companies overcome the waves of uncertainty. “I will present it,” he said.[View full article] [Uncertainty risks from the Middle East] Daeryun-SJKP ‘Global TF’ in operation… Focus on localized risk management (click here)

Experience in all areas of criminal, civil, and administrative affairs... 17 years of experience as a judge and prosecutor, including chief judge of Daegu District Court Enhancing legal service capabilities with a wide range of case experience from special investigations, trials, and appellate trials Daeryun Law Firm announced on the 8th that it has strengthened its ability to respond to trials and investigations by recruiting lawyer Park Seong-jun (34th class of the Judicial Research and Training Institute), a former chief judge. Attorney Park was appointed as a prosecutor in 2005 and entered the legal profession. I took a step. Since then, he has gained a deep understanding of investigative logic by experiencing the entire criminal process at the Busan District Prosecutors' Office, the Geochang Branch of the Changwon District Prosecutors' Office, and the Special Department of the Ansan Branch of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office. Attorney Park Seong-jun, who was appointed as a judge in 2010, has tried various cases while serving as a judge at the Daegu District Court and the Busan High Court. In particular, he is evaluated for his ability to accurately understand complex issues by taking on major cases that have attracted social attention, such as the appeal trial of the Dong-A Pharmaceutical executive rebate case and the appeal trial of the Hyowon Cultural Center contract invalidation case between Pusan National University and E-Land Retail. He has also been in charge of a case claiming damages against the state related to the death of a captain that occurred during a crackdown on illegal fishing. In addition, Attorney Seong-Jun Park is a legal expert who is qualified as a certified public accountant. He is recognized for his expertise while serving as a member of the Busan Regional Tax Office's tax violation investigation deliberation committee. Attorney Park Seong-joon said that he is competitive in responding to corporate-related cases and financial and tax issues by adding accounting expertise to his investigation and trial experience. “Based on the wealth of experience I have accumulated as a judge and prosecutor, I will present an optimal strategy that accurately penetrates the core of the case,” he said. “We will prioritize protecting the rights and interests of clients and provide legal services with practical results.” Kim Kuk-il, CEO of Daeryun Law Firm, said, “Attorney Park’s joining requires a complex legal review.” “It will be an opportunity to raise Daeryun’s service level in the areas of corporate advisory and large-scale litigation,” he said. “We will provide more sophisticated legal services based on our expertise in both trials and investigations.” Reporter Son Jeong-heon, Lawleader twson@lawleader.co.kr Law Leader - Daeryun Law Firm recruits former Chief Judge Park Seong-jun (Click here) Empathy Newspaper - Daeryun Law Firm Recruits Attorney Park Seong-jun, a former Chief Judge (Click here)

The legal debate that shakes the foundation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, so-called “territorial citizenship,” has once again been put to the test by the U.S. Supreme Court. Currently, a fierce legal battle over the scope of recognition of children's citizenship continues in the Supreme Court. The long-standing principle of granting citizenship to those born in the United States, regardless of their parents' residency status, is being shaken completely. Depending on the results of the final ruling, which is expected to take place between June and July, the legal status of Korean immigrant families and the entire family's residence plan could be changed in an instant. The key issue in this trial is the scope of interpretation of the 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' stipulated in the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Until now, citizenship has been consistently granted to those born within U.S. territory, but there is now a clear movement to limit the scope to only cases where at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. Until now, before the legal principle is overturned by a new ruling, the existing principle of territoriality remains in effect. However, if the Supreme Court narrows the scope of its jurisdiction, the situation is reversed. The essential crisis of this situation is that the acquisition of citizenship for children of temporary residents such as international students and expatriates may be effectively blocked after this summer. The biggest threat posed by changes in legal interpretation is that the child's citizenship is dependent on the parent's residency status. So far, a child's citizenship has gone beyond a simple matter of nationality and has served as a 'legal shield' that allows a family to remain in the United States. If the child does not have independent residency rights called citizenship when the parent's visa expires, the entire family's education and residence base is bound to collapse. Therefore, we are now at a point where not only the child's documents but also the possibility of the parents' visa extension must be viewed as a single family-level risk and managed in an integrated manner. The first step in risk management is 'data archiving'. You must systematically prepare hospital records and medical treatment details at the time of the child's birth, as well as data proving that the parents have legally stayed in the United States and engaged in economic activities. This is because it serves as legal evidence to protect the child's status in the event of retroactive application of citizenship or disputes over eligibility in the future. In addition, if the visa you currently hold is limited to 'temporary stay', a strategy is needed to minimize the possibility of 'jurisdiction' controversy, such as checking with an expert on the possibility of switching to a visa that can secure a more stable stay status. In addition, in case securing US citizenship becomes uncertain, the Korean birth registration and nationality maintenance procedures should be carried out in parallel, but the timing should be carefully adjusted so that this process does not conflict with the 'intent to reside' under US immigration law. If you approach the U.S. process and Korea's family relationship registration report separately, there is a possibility that you will be placed in a long-term disadvantageous legal position as the nationality and residency status judgments overlap or conflict. This complex legal thread between the two countries can never be resolved with the legal knowledge of either country alone. This is because we need to precisely predict and respond to the butterfly effect that changes in U.S. immigration law will have on Korea's family law and military service law. In the end, a practical solution to this issue must be found in the 'cross-border' response capability that designs the optimal movement route by taking an integrated view of the laws of both countries. Only a systematic system in which domestic expertise and the working network of local law firms work together as a one-team in real time and simultaneously coordinate the procedures of both countries through a single window can be an effective safety net for Korean immigrants facing huge institutional changes. There are only about two months left until the Supreme Court ruling. From the moment a child is born, the legal clock already starts ticking. Rather than waiting for a ruling, proactively examining possible risks and establishing a response plan is the only sure way to protect your child's future and your family's daily life.● Contributions by external writers may differ from the editorial direction of this magazine. Gyeonggi Ilbo webmaster@kyeonggi.com[View full article] [Contribution] What is an integrated response strategy for the faltering birthright citizenship of the U.S. for the future of children? (Shortcut)

As the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that reciprocal tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) are illegal, the market is raising the possibility of tariff refunds worth about $166 billion. However, despite the possibility of tariff refunds, domestic export companies are often unable to take practical responses due to complicated procedures and the burden of hiring local experts. In particular, while the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is expected to operate the refund system (CAPE) around the 20th of this month, The industry's response goes beyond simple refund applications and extends to objections and lawsuits. Myung Jae-ho, a customs expert at Daeryun Law Firm, explained, "If we check in advance key elements such as identifying the refund entity, managing the settlement point, and designing the refund receipt structure, we can sufficiently increase the possibility of a refund." He also added, "We can respond more efficiently by using a domestic law firm that directly cooperates with a local U.S. law firm without an intermediary law firm." He selected 'confirmation of the claimant' as the factor that needs to be checked first. He explained, "About 6,000 companies, or 25% of the approximately 24,000 companies exporting to the United States, are transacting under DDP conditions in which the exporter bears the cost of customs duties, so there is a possibility that they may be eligible for a refund." He added, "We need to check 'who can claim it' before whether a refund is possible," he explained. Tariffs are paid by the importer of the United States (IOR) in customs clearance. Commissioner Myeong explained that there are many cases where it is written down, and in reality, there are many structures that make it difficult for Korean companies to claim refunds directly. In particular, in DDP transactions, cost burden and legal rights are often separated, so he emphasized that it is necessary to first review how the tariff burden and refund rights are established in the contract. He then explained that it is important to manage the schedule before and after 'tariff settlement (Liquidation)' when proceeding with the refund process. Before tariff settlement (Liquidation) Although corrections can be made relatively easily through a post-summary correction (PSC), it becomes difficult to respond if the protest procedure goes through after settlement. Commissioner Myeong reiterated that 'timing management' is most important because it usually takes about 314 days to settle, and objections must be raised within 180 days. Applying for a refund does not mean 'automatic payment'. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) presents each procedure based on the taxpayer's application rather than a lump sum automatic refund, and CBP is only an agency that executes refunds and does not have the authority to judge whether customs duties are illegal. Commissioner Myeong added, "For this reason, only part of the refund may be granted or rejected, and in the event of such a dispute, it is likely to lead to a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT)." These include securing an import declaration (entry), confirming the schedule for calculating and settling customs duties, and registering an account to receive a refund. Commissioner Myeong said, “Recently, CBP is considering paying refunds only through electronic transfer (ACH),” and added, “If you do not have a US account, a bypass receipt structure through a third-party agent must be prepared in advance.” Furthermore, the customs structure itself is recently changing to the form of ‘basic tariff + additional tariff.’ He also pointed out that companies should keep this in mind. He said, "In the past, a certain level of tariff was applied regardless of whether FTA was applied, but now, with the shift to the 'basic tariff + additional tariff (10%)' structure, the actual burden varies depending on whether or not the FTA is utilized." He added, "Proof of origin is also an important variable. Even if it is domestically produced, if key raw materials are imported, it may be difficult to recognize the origin." Separately, it is important to note that Article 232 of the Trade Expansion Act and Article 301 of the Trade Act, Tariffs, Dumping, and Countervailing Duties (AD/CVD) remain in place. He said, “There is a possibility of introducing additional tariffs based on Section 122 in the future, so there is a need to reorganize the mid- to long-term tariff strategy separately from whether or not to refund.” Lastly, Commissioner Myeong said, “Tariff refund is not a simple cost issue, but a complex area where contract structure, customs clearance method, and dispute response are all connected.” He added, “In practice, there is a possibility that CBP will increase the intensity of response by requesting submission of additional data through information request (Form 28) or delaying refund review. He pointed out, “For companies that are not prepared, the refund process may be prolonged or lead to unfavorable results,” and “It is important to approach strategically in the early stages, as the results vary greatly depending on preparation.” He also added, “Tariff refund lawsuits must be filed within two years, and in this case, around April 2027 is expected to be the final deadline, so now is the best time to prepare a response, as the rights may not be exercised if preparations are delayed. “It’s a point in time,” he added. Eunhye Lee (zhses3@joseilbo.com)[View full article] U.S. tariff refunds need a ‘strategic approach’ rather than a simple cost issue… “Timing for settlement and objection is key” (Shortcut)

Recently, with the expansion of K-brands into the global market, the establishment of overseas corporations and technology exports by domestic mid-sized companies are increasing, and the resulting 'cross-border (cross-border) risk' is also increasing. According to the results of a fact-finding survey by the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Businesses, 9 out of 10 exporting small and medium-sized enterprises are virtually giving up on rights relief even when overseas IP disputes arise due to the pressure of excessive litigation costs. In addition, the majority of small and medium-sized companies found it difficult to operate a large in-house legal team like large corporations, so the probability of being exposed to legal disputes when expanding overseas was found to be relatively high. In order to respond to these risks, Daeryun Corporate Legal Center announced on the 6th that it had subdivided the cross-border advisory area in earnest. The main areas of support are △ review and writing of international transaction agreements (NDA, license agreements, etc.) △ inspection of regulatory risks related to the establishment of overseas local corporations △ local labor law and tax advice. △Protection of core technologies and trademark rights, etc. The policy is to reduce unnecessary friction that companies may experience by checking complex overseas legal requirements in advance. In particular, the response process for 'non-payment to customers' and 'unauthorized use of trademark rights', which occur most frequently in the overseas business process, has also been systemized. Daeryun supports recovery of funds using local provisional seizure procedures and international arbitration provisions for non-payment of export payments that occur in Southeast Asia and other countries. In addition, we are providing immediate legal response measures, such as prompt invalidation judgments and applications for injunctions prohibiting infringement, to local brokers' malicious trademark preemption actions. Daeryun Law Firm's CEO Kim Kuk-il said, "For successful overseas expansion, not only the competitiveness of the product but also thorough risk management based on local laws must be supported." He added, "By taking full advantage of the accessibility of large law firms with a nationwide branch network, we provide legal support so that small and medium-sized businesses in the metropolitan area as well as local regions can conduct business stably on the global stage." “We will spare no effort in providing assistance,” he said. Reporter Kwon Byeong-seok (bsk730@fnnews.com)[View full article] Daeryun strengthens cross-border risk management for mid-size and small businesses...Segmentation of advisory areas (Go here)

A soldier in his 20s was put on trial on charges of swearing at a specific superior in his unit, but was found not guilty by the court because it was recognized that the remarks did not refer to a specific person and did not have a performance nature. According to the legal community on the 7th, the 3rd Regional Military Court acquitted Mr. A, in his 20s, who was indicted on charges of insulting his superior last month. Mr. A was indicted on charges of making insulting remarks against a specific superior in a situation where his remarks could be heard by people around him within the unit. However, Mr. A denied the charge, saying he had never made the problematic remarks. In addition, it was argued that even if the remark had been made, it was difficult to identify the other party as it was more like a dissatisfied self-talk. The court found him not guilty based on the statement of another unit member, Mr. B, who was at the scene at the time, saying, “I heard the remark itself, but I did not know who it was directed at.” In order for an insult to be established, the victim must be identified and the expression must be likely to be spread, but according to Mr. B's statement, Mr. A's remarks do not meet these requirements. Attorney Seo In-ho of the Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, "In this case, the key point was whether the remarks met the requirements for criminal punishment rather than whether Mr. A made the problematic remarks. As a result of the dispute focusing on whether a specific target was identified and whether the expression had the potential to be spread externally, a not guilty verdict was reached." Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] Soldier ‘not guilty’ on charge of insulting superior officer in unit… Court, “There is no performance without referring to a specific person” (Shortcut)

【Anchor Comment】So-called 'food to be discarded', such as leftover coffee made in a cafe, often unexpectedly become a source of dispute. Employees take it without permission because they will throw it out anyway, and in extreme cases, lawsuits break out. Reporter Byeong-soo Ahn checked the facts to see if there were actually any legal problems. 【 Reporter 】A case in a cafe in Cheongju where the owner sued an employee for taking a drink that was scheduled to be discarded. Public opinion is too strong. As the store owner belatedly withdrew the complaint, the store owner belatedly withdrew the complaint. We questioned whether employees should not freely take 'food that would otherwise be thrown away', such as leftover coffee or expired kimbap. When asked about the controversial Baek Cafe, they declined to comment, saying, "We are looking at the matter seriously." So, we looked into how other franchise cafes respond to similar situations, and the conclusion is that it is a problem. If there is food scheduled to be discarded, 'Immediate disposal' is the rule, so employees are strictly prohibited from eating or taking it away, and breaking this is a violation of the internal rules. ▶ Interview: Franchise cafe public relations manager - "In a broad sense, it's all company items. You can't use it arbitrarily, and you have to get the company's permission..." However, there were no cases of self-discipline or legal action, because it was "too inhumane to employees." Although no trial has actually been held for this reason, there is a possibility of being punished for business embezzlement if it goes to court. This is the diagnosis of the legal profession. This is because if there was no prior consent to take food that was not sold, 'illegal acquisition' can be recognized. If the employee has a practice of disposing of food scheduled for disposal or immediately repays the amount of damage, it may be taken into account, but if it is habitual or the amount taken is excessive, it may be disadvantageous. ▶ Interview: Youngjin Ahn / Attorney at Daeryun Law Firm - "If it goes to the trial stage, of course, an unfavorable result is expected for the defendant. The court may make a decision to postpone the sentencing by comprehensively considering these factors, such as the fact that the person is new to society... "The statement that there is no problem in taking it if you are going to throw it away is 'generally false'. However, the reality of having to worry about even a single leftover food is unfortunate. This is Ahn Byeong-soo, fact check. Video coverage: Seong-woon Baek, VJ Video editing: Choi Hyeong-chan, Reporter Lee Sae-bom, Ahn Byeong-su. ahn.byungsoo@mbn.co.kr[View full article] [Fact Check] Are beverages scheduled to be disposed of employees’ responsibility? Looking into the controversy over Baekdabang (Go to the link)

Prosecutors accused of buying real estate with about 280 million won from wife who had embezzled funds: “Ordinary apartment sale process… It is difficult to believe that the fact of embezzlement was hidden” The prosecution cleared the husband, who was accused of hiding criminal proceeds by purchasing real estate with money embezzled by his wife. According to the legal community on the 6th, the Ansan Branch of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office handed over the case to the prosecution on the 27th of last month on charges of violating the law on the regulation and punishment of concealment of criminal proceeds. Mr. A, a man in his 60s, was cleared of any charges. Mr. A has been under investigation for allegedly receiving and hiding about 280 million won of the approximately 3.5 billion won in funds that his wife, a company accountant, had embezzled while working. The issue of the investigation was whether, despite knowing about his wife's embezzlement, he received a large amount of money transferred to her account and used it to buy real estate, such as an apartment and a new building. Mr. A completely denied the charges, saying, “Because my wife was in charge of all household expenses and income management, I did not even know the details of the account transactions in my name.” He continued, “I had no idea of the embezzlement until my wife went to turn herself in to the police.” He added, “The funds to purchase the real estate in question were also funds given by my mother. He claimed, “It was purchased by combining the existing deposit.” The prosecution accepted Mr. A’s claim, saying that the process of selling his apartment seemed to be a normal flow. The prosecution said, “According to the real estate transaction details, the apartments purchased in the suspect’s name are part of the normal apartment sales process, such as acquiring a house from a non-owner or disposing of an existing house and acquiring a new house,” and judged, “There are no circumstances confirmed to suggest that excessive property was acquired through criminal proceeds.” Regarding the account in Mr. Attorney Dae-ryun of the law firm explained, “According to Article 4 of the crime of concealment of criminal proceeds, it must be clearly proven that he was aware of the circumstances. Just because he is a family member, it cannot be concluded that he was aware of another person’s crime and conspired to collect the proceeds.” He added, “In this case, it is a case where the wife was able to be cleared of the unfair charge of being an accomplice by proving through objective financial transaction details that she was the one in charge of managing the household finances.” Reporter Mi-ji Kim unknown@kyeonggi.com[View full article] “Buying real estate with money my wife embezzled?”... Husband accused of being an accomplice ‘acquitted’ (link)

Daeryun Law Firm announced on the 6th that it signed a business agreement (MOU) with the Korean-Chinese Association at its main office in Yeouido, Seoul on the 31st of last month and decided to provide legal support to foreigners residing in Korea. The agreement ceremony was attended by officials from both sides, including CEO Park Dong-il of Daeryun and Oh Seong-ho, president of the Korean-Chinese Community Association. Starting with this agreement, both sides plan to establish a counseling system for foreigners residing in Korea who cannot receive legal help due to language barriers or institutional unfamiliarity. In particular, the scope of support has expanded beyond simple immigration and visa issues to include contract disputes, investment advice, labor-related issues, and civil and criminal cases that may arise during business management. The Korean-Chinese Korean Association is an organization established in 2015 that operates community-based projects and community volunteer activities for Korean Chinese and foreigners residing in Korea. The association expects that this cooperation with Daeryun will be able to raise the level of legal welfare within the community to a higher level. Oh Seong-ho, president of the Korean-Chinese Association, said, "There are many legal problems experienced by Chinese people staying in Korea," and "I believe that a more systematic legal response will be possible through cooperation with Daeryun." Through this cooperation, Daeryun has also taken a step closer to expanding the global market. Park Dong-il, CEO of Daeryun Law Firm, said, "We will actively utilize Daeryun's global legal network and collaboration system with local lawyers in China," and added, "We will lay the foundation for foreigners residing in Korea to receive legal services without discrimination." In fact, Daeryun is accelerating the expansion of its cross-border legal network connecting Korea and overseas, including recently joining hands with Tahota, a large Chinese law firm. Reporter Cheon Ju-young (young1997@mydaily.co.kr)[View full article] Daeryun Law Firm and the Korean-Chinese Korean Association signed an MOU for legal support for foreigners residing in Korea (Click here)

Column by American lawyer Dong-hoo Son of Daeryun Law Firm (Limited) The number of so-called ‘flip’ cases of moving headquarters overseas to attract global investment and successful overseas expansion is increasing. The number of Korean companies attempting to enter the global ecosystem by establishing local joint ventures (JVs) is also increasing. According to a media report, the number of domestic startups that conducted flips increased six-fold in 10 years from 32 in 2014 to 186 in 2024. This suggests that for export companies, restructuring their governance structure in line with global standards is no longer an option but an essential gateway to growth. However, a hasty push for a flip could actually be detrimental. This is because you may face an unexpected tax bomb or management crisis. This is a tragedy that occurs when only superficial procedures are followed without a professional understanding of ‘cross border’ work, in which the laws and systems of both countries are complicatedly intertwined. We must be aware that a flip that is not preceded by a thorough legal diagnosis can become a fatal trap that is strangling the company, and we must thoroughly check the legal risks. The first difficulty we face is the tax burden. The flip is carried out by exchanging existing Korean corporation stocks for newly established U.S. holding company stocks. At this time, there is a high risk that Korean tax authorities will regard this as an actual transfer of stocks and impose a large capital gains tax. If the tax treaties and tax laws of both countries are not analyzed at the same time to design a legal tax-saving structure, a situation may arise where the founder has to pay hundreds of millions of won in transfer taxes without actually receiving cash, depending on the valuation at the time of stock exchange. In addition, the threat to management rights caused by the differences in the corporate law systems between Korea and the United States cannot be overlooked. The U.S. state of Delaware, where many companies head, broadly recognizes the ‘principle of business judgment’ and strongly protects the authority of the board of directors. However, paradoxically, in order to keep this in check, American investors put strong pressure on entrepreneurs through ‘contracts’ rather than laws. They control the board of directors by inserting detailed protective provisions, such as an extensive right of veto, into investment contracts, and after the fact, they actively utilize shareholder lawsuits to challenge directors' violations of their strict fiduciary duties. Ultimately, if the toxic clauses contained in the local standard investment contract cannot be filtered out, there is a high possibility that the founder will lose actual management leadership or become embroiled in enormous litigation risk, despite having a nominal equity advantage. In fact, there are many cases where founders of famous domestic startups were effectively excluded from the board of directors after Series B. The risk of violating the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act that arises during the capital transfer process is also fatal. This is because omitting Korea's foreign exchange prior reporting obligation or violating procedures can escalate into a criminal risk that will result in investigation by investigative agencies. Therefore, if the regulatory networks of both countries are not carefully examined, successfully attracted funds can suddenly become shackles that can shake the existence of a company. In other words, overseas capital movement is a highly complex project that goes beyond simple contract review and can only be completed when the laws, systems, and regulatory systems of both countries are aligned. Ultimately, the key to solving all these problems lies in practical cross-border capabilities. Korean and American laws differ not only in language but also in the regulatory systems surrounding companies. It should not be overlooked that decisions made solely based on U.S. law may directly violate the taxation logic of Korean tax authorities or foreign exchange transaction law regulations. With the existing fragmented method in which large domestic law firms delegate practical work to local law firms, it is difficult to understand the organically intertwined legal issues of the two countries in a timely and three-dimensional manner. In addition, there is a risk that communication will be delayed in urgent situations. Therefore, for companies that are about to take a full-fledged global leap forward, it is essential to have the assistance of a working expert who can apply the legal standards of both countries at the same time and formulate a detailed strategy. Beyond the fragmentary review of documents, lawyers from both countries should be able to communicate in real time about a single case and come up with a comprehensive solution. In a structure where the headquarters in Korea and local lawyers in the U.S. provide separate advice on the same case, the gap becomes a risk. The success or failure of the flip ultimately depends on whether the legal environments of both countries can be controlled simultaneously within one strategy.[View full article] ‘Flip’ has increased 6-fold in 10 years... How do we prevent global tickets from becoming ‘poisonous’? (Shortcut)