Press Coverage

Following the U.S. and EU, the standards for determining probable origin are different for Korean exports... Strategic response is needed considering additional tariff risks and substantial modification criteria U.S. President Donald Trump (pictured) announced on the 11th that he would impose a 25% tariff on all steel and aluminum products imported from foreign countries. Just over a week after signing an executive order imposing an additional tariff of 10% on Chinese products and 25% on products from Mexico and Canada based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and abolishing the duty exemption for small items (under $800), another additional measure was decided. The 'Trump tariff war' appears to be intensifying as the target does not discriminate between hostile countries and allies and friendly countries. President Trump has been pursuing a tariff retaliation strategy since his first term in office. During the first term of office, additional tariffs were imposed based on Articles 201 (emergency import restrictions) and 301 (response to unfair trade practices) of the Trade Act, and Article 232 (tariffs related to national security) of the Trade Expansion Act. The second administration is using more diverse laws in the tariff war, such as imposing additional tariffs based on IEEPA. The United States' measures to impose additional tariffs are determined by the country of origin of the goods. Accordingly, we would like to take a look at the standards for determining the country of origin in the United States. Standards for determining the origin of goods subject to additional tariffs The standards for determining the origin of goods subject to additional tariffs are determined in accordance with the ‘substantial modification standard’ principle of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The standard for substantial transformation is the principle that when manufacturing processes in two or more countries are connected, the country where the last substantial transformation occurred is the country of origin. The main considerations are as follows: ① Whether the name, characteristics, and use of the intermediate product have changed ② Whether the intermediate product already contains the essential characteristics of the final product ③ Whether the use of the intermediate product is pre-determined to be used in the final product ④ Whether the intermediate product has lost its identity in the subsequent processing process ⑤ Whether the assembly/processing process corresponds to simple assembly/processing Even if a certificate of origin is legally issued for exported goods in accordance with the Korea-US FTA, they may be determined to be made in China according to the US's substantive modification standards and may be subject to additional tariffs. Not only must it be recognized that the origin determination criteria (tariff change, value-added standards, etc.) under the Korea-US FTA Agreement are different from the origin determination criteria for additional tariff imposition measures, but it is also necessary to determine the origin by confirming the main considerations of the substantive modification criteria in preparation for the origin verification by the U.S. Customs Service. Case of determination of origin by the U.S. Customs Service (CBP) ① Determination of origin of forklift (N302755) Let’s look at the case of determination of origin of forklift, where the engine, an intermediate product, originates from the United States, and the remaining parts originate from China. Although manufactured in China, the U.S. importer explained that the engine is the core component that gives the forklift its essential characteristics and that the processing in China is merely an auxiliary means of assembling the components. However, CBP determined that the final country of origin is China, saying that the engine does not possess the essential characteristics of a forklift, and since a forklift cannot operate without various components produced in China, the engine must also be considered at the same level as these. ② Determination of the country of origin of the digital thermometer (N302764) The dual probe sensor, which is an intermediate product, is made in Israel, and the digital thermometer with all remaining electrical components made in China was confirmed to be made in Israel during the country of origin determination procedure. This is because determining the country of origin of products produced in multiple countries requires a comprehensive review of whether new product names, characteristics, and uses have been created. It was recognized that the Israeli-made sensor embodies the core technology to perform the essential functions of a thermometer and that it contains the essential characteristics of a thermometer. President Trump is predicting that he will impose additional tariffs on the European Union (EU) due to the trade deficit. Korea, one of the major exporting countries, recorded a surplus of $127.8 billion in exports to the United States last year and a trade balance of $55.69 billion, so Trump's attention is expected to turn to Korea soon. Domestic import and export companies will need to pay attention to and manage not only 'preferential origin' regulations such as FTA, but also 'non-preferential origin' regulations, which are the basis for additional tariff imposition measures by the United States. <Written by Hankyung Law&Biz> Kim Dae-ryun, customs expert at Dae-ryun Law Firm[View full article] Tariff war between Trump and rules of origin that should not be missed [Daeryun's Biz law forum] (Shortcut)

Plaintiff claims return of 240 million won in contribution and settlement amount Court says, "Under commercial law, anonymous partnership...there is no obligation to return the investment amount when all the investment amount is reduced due to business usage expenses." A ruling was made that there is no need to return the contribution and settlement amount in the case of liquidation of the partnership contract due to using up all the investment amount due to operating deficit while doing business as a partnership and failing to perform profit settlement, etc. Judge Ryu Ji-mi, independent of civil affairs 8, Ansan Branch, Suwon District Court, ruled that the franchise It was confirmed that the plaintiff's claim was dismissed in December of last year in a lawsuit filed by Mr. A, a party to the partnership contract, against Mr. B, a partner. Mr. A and others agreed to a franchise partnership agreement with Mr. B around March 2022 and jointly acquired a shopping mall located in Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do. In the partnership agreement, Mr. A and others decided not to participate in management and only provide various funds such as shopping mall purchase costs, interior construction costs, and franchise fees. Mr. B agreed to take responsibility for the overall management of the business. Regarding the distribution of profits, Mr. B agreed to distribute the sales profits in a certain ratio and then pay them to Mr. A and others. However, unlike in the early days of the business, as interest rates rose, Mr. B was unable to pay the profits he had previously provided. When losses occurred, Mr. A and others filed a lawsuit for return of investment, claiming that Mr. B, a business associate, should return approximately 240 million won, including the entire investment they had supported, unpaid profits, interest, etc. In this trial, defendant B said, “As the interest rate on loans has increased, profits from commercial operation alone are insufficient.” He argued, “As the deficit continued, I tried to compensate for the loss by taking out business loans and investing personal expenses.” Judge Ryu Ji-mi of the Ansan branch of the Suwon District Court, who heard the case, ruled, “Acknowledging the special situation of operating deficit, Mr. B has no obligation to return the investment, etc.” “He made the deposit and used it for expenses, but it appears that he was unable to avoid an operating deficit,” the ruling said. “Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant has an investment amount to return to the plaintiffs.” Attorney Jaehyung Lee of Daeryun Law Firm (Limited), who represented the defendant B in this lawsuit, said, “Even if the commercial partnership has been dissolved, only the reduced balance of the investment is required to be returned pursuant to Article 85 of the Commercial Act,” and “Mr. “We were in a difficult situation, and although we tried various measures, it was difficult to avoid a deficit, so it should be said that there is no contribution or settlement amount for Mr. B to return since the amount exceeding the investment amount was already spent,” he explained. Reporter Son Dong-wook (twson@lawleader.co.kr)[View full article] Court, partnership liquidation dispute... “There is no obligation to return the investment if the investment is overused due to operating deficit” (Shortcut)

“3When the Serious Accident Punishment Act was introduced a year ago, construction companies tried to stop it, saying there were problems, but it was no use.. This is what happened because we ignored the side effects and implemented it recklessly.. It's an expected result..” (AConstruction company official)2022The Serious Accident Punishment Act, introduced in 2018, takes effect this year. 3celebrated the year. As the name suggests, the purpose is to prevent major disasters, but the diagnosis is that it is not actually effective.. It was revealed that casualties at construction sites nationwide have actually increased.. The focus should be on disaster prevention, but there are concerns that the enactment of laws focusing on strong punishment has reduced their effectiveness.. Was the Serious Accident Act effective? 20According to data received from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport by Park Yong-gap, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea, the number of deaths at large construction companies increased., Ranked top in last year’s construction capability evaluation 20Workers who died at the construction site of the above construction company 35By name, 2023year(28number of people)rather than 25% increased. This is the first year of enforcement of the Severe Accident Punishment Act. 2022year(33number of people)There is no difference compared to. This is a comprehensive government construction information network.(CSI)This data is a compilation of the number of deaths registered in. In accordance with the law, construction companies must immediately CSImust be reported to.Even if we include the injured, the results are no different.. last year's top 20All deaths and injuries that occurred at the construction site were 1868This is the first year of enforcement of the Severe Accident Punishment Act. 2022year(1666number of people)compared to 12.1% increased. This means that industrial accidents have hardly decreased even after the implementation of the Serious Accident Punishment Act..The atmosphere is similar not only to the construction industry but also to other industries.. Ministry of Employment and Labor Major Accident NotificationeAccording to last year 13Quarterly cumulative manufacturing site deaths 134in the same period last year(123number of people) contrast 8.9% increased. fortune, storage, The telecommunications industry also had a high number of deaths during the same period. 12In people 19By name 58% increased.The Serious Accident Punishment Act applies to corporate workplaces. 1More than one person killed or injured 10If more than one person occurs, contact the business owner or management manager. 1imprisonment for more than one year or 10It is a law that imposes a fine of up to 100 million won.. It was mainly implemented in large businesses last year. 1Full-time worker from March 5more than phosphorus 50Expanded implementation to workplaces with less than 20 people.Let’s look at the background of the introduction of the Serious Accident Punishment Act..This does not mean that there have been no safety-related domestic regulations so far.. Even before the introduction of the Serious Accident Act, laws for worker safety clearly existed.. Before enactment of the Serious Accident Act, When an accident occurred at a workplace, the applicable laws were mainly the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Criminal Act.. The Occupational Safety and Health Act is a bill that punishes top personnel at sites who violate safety and health measures.. Criminal law stipulates death due to violation of duty of care at work., injury, When a disease occurs, the occupational manslaughter clause applies.. Applicable persons are those who directly caused the accident.. Both the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Criminal Act focus only on field issues..However, the Serious Accident Act has a different nature.. We focus on checking how much business owners and managers care about safety rather than on site.. The Serious Accident Act focuses on whether individual business owners and business managers have complied with their obligations to ensure safety and health.. If the business owner does not properly implement the measures prescribed by law, he or she will be subject to punishment.. This means that industrial accidents are viewed as a problem for the entire company rather than a simple on-site problem..The Serious Accident Act was introduced because, as the number of industrial accidents has increased rapidly in recent years, it is difficult to solve the fundamental problem by punishing only those responsible for the field.. The argument that the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which stipulates safety and health measure obligations only at workplaces, has its limitations has gained strength.. Company-wide investment to ensure safety and health, There were strong calls for more structural solutions, such as establishing a safety and health management system.. Thanks to this social atmosphere, the argument that corporate managers who provided the fundamental cause of the accident should be held responsible has gained strength.. so-called ‘Prevention effect through punishment’The purpose is to obtain.Serious Accident Act Why is fatal accidents not decreasing in industrial sites even though the Serious Accident Punishment Act, which was ambitiously introduced like the youngest person who can't have accidents, has been established?. The legal and business worlds are largely 4Bring up the causes.cause 1 Severe Accident Act only regulates institutional limitations and management…‘human error’ The biggest factor that cannot be captured is the institutional limitations of the Serious Accident Act itself..At the time of introduction, Dramatically reduce industrial accidents ‘one-size-fits-all bill’It seemed like it, but the reality is different.. Strictly speaking, the Serious Accident Act, It is not a system that strengthens safety measures on site.. As mentioned earlier, the bill that deals with field safety is the Occupational Safety and Health Act.. The Serious Accident Act focuses on regulating management to fulfill safety and health obligations rather than on-site conditions.. If management does not establish appropriate safety measures, Punishment for violating the Serious Accident Act. the other side, If safety measures have been established in accordance with the guidelines provided by the Serious Accident Act,, The boss can avoid punishment.Here, the limitations of the Serious Accident Act are revealed.. No matter how perfect corporate managers create systems, they cannot control each and every field.. Typically, industrial accidents occur 80%A minor mistake by the site manager or worker, so-called ‘human error’is the cause. Accidentally breaking safety regulations, Deviations, such as using tricks to get things done quickly, often lead to accidents..2022year 4month HThe death of a Solutek employee is a case where worker deviation led to an accident.. He died after falling while inspecting the outdoor unit of the air conditioner.. Although it was a serious accident,, HSolutek and its CEO were not indicted.. The accident occurred without prior approval from the person in charge., This is because the accident occurred while working alone without using a high-altitude work vehicle and without wearing protective gear..The company faithfully fulfilled its safety and health management obligations as specified in the Serious Accident Act.. It was concluded that despite company-wide efforts, accidents due to minor employee deviations could not be prevented.. Judicial authorities are responsible for an accident that resulted in the death of a worker due to deviation from the procedures set by the manager., It was decided that it would be difficult to admit the charges against the business owner..It is difficult to prevent damage caused by unexpected accidents using the Serious Accident Act alone.. This is because the focus is only on checking the safety management system in the management system rather than taking actual safety measures.. 2022at the time PA typical example is an accident involving the death of an industrial worker.. worker AMr. and foreign workers BMr. belongs to a subcontractor. P1st industrial company4Using a compression molding machine at the factory ‘bearing seal’ In charge of molding work. BFor convenience of work, he used hand tools to seat the metal ring and rubber ring, contrary to their original purpose..Meanwhile 2022year 2The wall hand tool was crushed by the pressure of the compression molding machine and then bounced off. AIt hit Mr.'s head. AHe died from traumatic cerebral hemorrhage.. At the time, the court “A causal relationship must be recognized between the outcomes of major disasters., It was impossible to foresee a case where a hand tool would get stuck and bounce out.”The reasons for the not guilty verdict were revealed.. This was because management could not prevent unexpected accidents..An anonymous legal official said “Dead during a serious disaster(亡人)There are quite a few accidents that occurred due to the fault of. Also, in workplaces where there is a lot of dangerous work, there are quite a few unexpected accidents.. It's a pity, The Serious Accident Act cannot prevent accidents like this.”explained. cause 2 Changed industrial sites: The increase in foreign workers, the aging population, and the halving of the effect of the Serious Accident Act are also behind changes in the industrial sites.. Construction where industrial accidents occur frequently, Manufacturing sites are jobs that young Koreans avoid.. All domestic workers left., Vacancies are being filled by foreign workers..Foreign personnel are difficult to control on site.. Because I'm not good at Korean, I can't communicate well., Safety control rules written in Korean are also difficult to understand.. The environment is such that it is difficult for field managers to properly train as in the past.. Recently, even field managers often hire foreigners..Construction industry officials “Foreign languages ​​are used more frequently than Korean at construction sites.. language barrier, Field managers have difficulty managing due to issues such as cultural differences.. No matter how excellent a safety management system is, the reality is that it is difficult to apply it to the field.”He complained.Industrial accidents among foreign workers are increasing every year.. According to data received by People Power Party lawmaker Kim Wi-sang from the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service. 2024year 3The total number of industrial accident deaths for which industrial accident approval was completed by the quarter is 617By name, Of these 80It was calculated that people were foreigners.. Accidental industrial accidents refer to industrial accidents that occur due to on-site accidents, not diseases.. The proportion of foreigners among industrial accident deaths is 2022year 9.7%at 2023year 10.4%, 2024year(19month)n 12.9%steadily increased to.2024year 5The number of foreign workers in Korea on a monthly basis is 101Total number of employed people in Korea is 10,000 people.(2857only6000number of people)of 3.5%It's just. Considering this, the probability of foreigners dying in an accident while working is much higher than that of Koreans.. last year 23In the case of the fire disaster at the Aricell factory in Hwaseong, Gyeonggi-do, where 15 people died 18There were foreign workers. Industrial accident applications by foreign workers compared to the previous year 6.5% increased 1only161For the first time with a gun 1exceeded 10,000 cases.The aging of field workers is also considered a factor that makes it difficult to prevent accidents.. Due to the phenomenon of young workers avoiding industrial sites, the construction and manufacturing industry is experiencing a serious aging of workers.. Elderly people with lower physical abilities have difficulty coping with sudden accidents and have a higher risk of death in the event of an accident.. Ministry of Employment and Labor survey results, 2024year 3Among accident deaths subject to disaster investigation on a cumulative quarterly basis 50The proportion of people over the age of 71.1%reached. Cause 3: The burden of establishing a name-free safety and health system is increasing for small and medium-sized businesses. One of the loopholes in the Serious Accident Act is that it is virtually a ‘name-free’ system for small and medium-sized businesses. Most small and medium-sized companies lack the manpower and budget to establish a safety and health management system, and are unable to establish even the minimum safety guidelines set by law. According to a survey of 702 small and medium-sized businesses with less than 50 employees last year by the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry, about half of the responding companies (47%) responded that they had not actually established a safety and health management system to prepare for the Serious Accident Act. The biggest reasons why small and medium-sized businesses cannot even respond are ‘lack of manpower’ and ‘cost burden’. The Serious Accident Act mandates the appointment of a safety and health manager and the provision of disaster prevention facilities. It is virtually impossible to establish a safety management system for small and medium-sized companies that lack the manpower and budget to run the business right now. An official in the construction industry said, “Small and medium-sized construction companies are construction companies, not safety companies,” and raised their voice, saying, “It is difficult to recruit the design, public affairs, and civil engineering personnel required for the site, and it is virtually impossible to hire additional safety personnel.” An official from company C, a pump manufacturer, said, “Large companies can invest as much money as necessary to establish a safety and health management system, but small and medium-sized companies can establish a safety and health management system by investing as much as necessary.” “There is no budget for that, and the youngest person at the production site is a worker in his 50s.” The government introduced a ‘joint safety manager system’ for small and medium-sized enterprises with insufficient budget and manpower, but the response on the ground was only lukewarm. The joint safety manager operates by jointly establishing a safety and health management system for each region and industry, and the government supports a portion of the operating costs. However, in the field, there is an atmosphere of ignoring this due to the burden of safety manager ransom. According to data submitted by People Power Party lawmaker Woo Jae-jun from the Ministry of Employment and Labor, as of August last year, the recruitment rate for the joint safety manager support project was only 50.8%. An official from a small business complained of frustration, saying, “We applied for government support to respond to the Serious Accident Act, but the experts only pointed out the actual situation and went away,” and “I don’t know how to improve facilities and appoint personnel, which cost tens of millions of won.” Cause 4 Sentencing with a rubber band that comes and goes There is no standard for sentencing The jumbled sentencing standards that come and go also cause distrust in the field toward the Serious Accident Act. Although three years have passed since the law went into effect, there is no independent sentencing standard. Moreover, rather than being heard by a collegial panel of several judges, the case is heard by a single judge. Because there is a large difference in sentencing among judges, the rulings are mixed even for similar cases. Jo Seong-geun, a lawyer specializing in serious accidents at Daeryun Law Firm, explained, “The Serious Accident Act has no specific sentencing standards, and it is difficult to find related lower court precedents.” He added, “It is difficult for even lawyers to predict sentences, so they have no choice but to ask themselves, ‘I must somehow avoid being caught under the Serious Accident Act.’” The vague sentencing standards are the biggest concern for companies. It's part. An official from a small and medium-sized manufacturing company said, “Because the Serious Accident Act itself is complex and unclear, it is difficult for small and medium-sized businesses to understand the level of preparation they should take and under what circumstances they will be punished, even if they read the guidelines and receive related consulting.” An official from a food manufacturing company who requested anonymity said, “We don’t know when or how an accident will occur, so it is excessive to punish them with ‘imprisonment for more than a year’ just because they are in charge of the business. In the case of small and medium-sized businesses, if the CEO is arrested, the business will close and workers will become unemployed.” The opinions of officials of the Korea Federation of SMEs and Startups are in a similar vein. (Continued from the original article) Reporter Kim Gyeong-min, Maekyung Economy (kmkim@mk.co.kr) Reporter Jin-wook Ban, Maekyung Economy (halfnuk@mk.co.kr) Reporter Dong-hyeon Cho, Maekyung Economy (cho.donghyun@mk.co.kr)[View full article] Casualties actually increased... Is the Serious Accident Punishment Act useless? [Special Report] (Shortcut)

Daeryun Law Firm, which provides legal services for various interests within the entertainment industry, announced on the 20th that it signed an MOU with MIPPIA Co., Ltd., an AI (artificial intelligence)-based music plagiarism inspection service company. At the signing ceremony held at MIPPIA headquarters on the 19th, key officials including Daeryun CEO Kim Kuk-il, Director Lee Ye-seom, Mipia CEO Oh Chan-ho, Director Shim Jin-young, and Lee CMO CMO Lee Chae-hyun attended. Mipia Co., Ltd. It is a company that operates a music copyright protection platform based on Based on technology developed by a composer with 20 years of experience, it analyzes musical elements such as melody, rhythm, and harmony in detail to determine whether the sound source has been plagiarized and provides results. Mipia, which launched its service in 104 countries around the world in July of last year, is attracting attention in the industry, attracting 10,000 users within a month of launch. Through this agreement, Daeryun plans to provide various legal assistance that may arise within the intellectual property and entertainment industry. Specifically, it includes △advice on the publicity rights of AI-generated music △presentation of solutions in case of copyright infringement disputes △preparation of measures for disputes within the entertainment industry. Chan-ho Oh, CEO of Mipia, said, “Through Mipia, users can receive not only plagiarism check services but also detailed reports that can be used for legal review.” He added, “As the number of service users increased, a more accurate response to related legal issues was needed, and we received advice from Daeryun. “I feel confident,” he said. “Daeryun is pursuing continuous growth by expanding offices not only domestically but also overseas,” he said. “We plan to provide intellectual property rights advice to Mipia and provide one-stop professional and practical legal advice with experts in each field such as patent attorneys, labor attorneys, and tax accountants.” Meanwhile, Daeryun operates intellectual property rights and entertainment/sports groups together, and relies on experts in industries such as music, movies, and webtoons. We provide specialized comprehensive legal services. Reporter Park Jun-sik (parkjs@wowtv.co.kr)[View full article] Korea Economic Daily TV - Daeryun and Mifia 'joint hands'... “Leading the way in protecting music intellectual property rights” (link) International News - Daeryun signs MOU with Mipia... Strengthening protection of sound source intellectual property rights (link) Roishu - Daeryun Law Firm, MOU with Mipia... Leading the way in protecting music intellectual property rights (click here) Legal Times - [Law Firm iN] Daeryun, MOU with Mipia for ‘Music Plagiarism Testing’ (Click here)

A high school student who led a group cyberbullying to retaliate against a friend who broke a promise will be punished by the School Violence Response Committee (School Violence Committee). In December 2024, the School Violence Committee will investigate the victim and the victim A, who is accused of bullying a friend who was attending another school. It was confirmed that the decision was made to prohibit contact, intimidation, and retaliation against the student who reported/accused (No. 2), 6 hours of school volunteer work (No. 3), and 6 hours of special education (No. 5), and ordered the guardian to complete 4 hours of special education. In September 2024, Ms. School violence includes not only physical and verbal violence against students inside and outside of school, but also cyberbullying such as bullying and emotional harassment through SNS. At the time, it was found that Ms. B suffered group verbal violence from a number of students whom she had never met in person. It was revealed that Ms. A and other perpetrators humiliated and sexually shamed Ms. B by making disparaging remarks about her family and sexual profanity. In particular, Ms. B apologized several times for breaking her promise, but Ms. A and her group did not stop their collective harassment. In the end, the incident became known belatedly when Ms. B, who could not endure the bullying, told her parents about it. Ms. B's legal representative, who accompanied the school violence committee, said, "The violence suffered by Ms. B was at a level that could not be dismissed as a simple fight between friends," and emphasized, "The indiscriminate verbal violence that many people used against Ms. B is a crime that should never be tolerated." The Daejeon Metropolitan City Western Office of Education's School Violence Committee accepted these claims and issued a statement against Ms. A, who led the school violence. Disciplinary action was decided. Attorney Kim Jin-joo of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented B, a victim of school violence, said, “Most students these days have electronic devices such as cell phones, so cyber school violence is occurring frequently.” He also explained, “The level of crimes such as online bullying, blackmail, coercion, and sexual violence are also increasing.” Attorney Kim Jin-ju continued, “Due to the nature of online cyber school bullying, anonymous communication is frequent, so it is necessary to keep the details of the damage. “It is most important to secure screenshots, etc.,” he said, adding, “If you receive a grade 4 or higher as a result of academic violence committee disciplinary action, a record will remain in your life record, and it will remain for a certain period of time even after graduation, which may affect college entrance exams.” Reporter Son Dong-wook (twson@lawleader.co.kr)[View full article] High school student who committed ‘cyber school violence’ by breaking a promise... Disciplinary action taken by the School Violence Committee (Go to here)

While on trial for stalking an upstairs neighbor, the crime was "only an attempt, but he prepared a weapon in advance and could not avoid imprisonment." A man who had been in conflict for years due to noise between floors was sentenced to prison for trying to threaten his neighbor with a weapon. It has been pointed out that noise between floors goes beyond simple discord between neighbors and sometimes leads to violent crimes. Judge Kim Hyun-joo, Criminal Division 3, Western Branch of the Busan District Court, sentenced Mr. A, a man in his 30s, who was indicted on charges of attempted special intimidation, to four months in prison on the 19th. Mr. A has been in conflict with B, a woman in her 50s who lives on the upper floor of his house, over the issue of noise between floors since early 2022, and has been accused of violating the law on the punishment of stalking crimes. was on trial. Meanwhile, Mr. A received a 112 call at 8:25 a.m. on November 11 last year and was told by the police that he had made a report regarding inter-floor noise from the upper floor. Mr. A, who was enraged by this, grabbed the weapon that was in his small room and went out the front door, shouting, “I will kill those above.” However, he was stopped by a police officer in front of the front door, so the crime ended up being an attempt. Judge Kim ruled, “The crime was only an attempt and the victim did not recognize the defendant’s special threatening behavior, but Mr. A committed the crime while he was being tried for stalking Mr. B, and he had a weapon prepared in advance, so he cannot avoid a prison sentence because he used the weapon.” Recently, conflicts over noise between floors have become a social problem, with cases being applied to the stalking punishment law. There is. In fact, in August last year, the Busan District Court sentenced a man in his 70s who was arrested and indicted on charges of violating the stalking crime punishment law to one year and two months in prison. This man continued to visit the house above where a woman in her 30s moved in alone, complaining and swearing, and even went to him with a baseball bat and hit the front door. However, in some rulings, the man was found not guilty, and attention is focused on the criteria for applying stalking charges. In May of last year, the Seoul Central District Court acquitted a man in his 40s who was indicted on charges of violating the stalking punishment law and causing injury. The prosecution determined that Mr. C caused injuries to Mr. D, including insomnia and anxiety disorder, by swearing and behaving badly at night on 17 occasions from May 2017 to June 2021. However, the court ruled, “It is difficult to say that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he stalked the victim and caused insomnia and anxiety disorder through threats and other actions.” The legal community explains that the crime of stalking is established when a specific act is performed continuously and repeatedly to cause anxiety or fear in the other person. Park Dong-il, attorney representing Daeryun Law Firm, said, “As conflicts due to noise between floors intensify, there are many cases where the other party engages in unwanted contact, approach, and surveillance repeatedly, and as a result, there is a possibility that it may meet the legal requirements for a stalking crime.” He added, “Therefore, in the process of resolving the issue of noise between floors, it is necessary to refrain from emotional responses and take a cautious approach that takes legal risks into consideration.” Reporter Kim Seong-hyeon (kksh@busan.com)[View full article] I was stopped when I tried to visit my neighbor with a weapon due to a conflict between floors... 4 months in prison (link)

It is very important to set the standard time for property division during divorce. This is because the property held by each person at that reference point soon becomes the subject of division (property subject to division). The court states that ① "In principle, the property subject to division and its amount are determined based on the closing date of the factual hearing of the divorce suit," and ② "If it is easy to spend or conceal, such as money, and there is a risk of double addition when the reference point is different, the object and amount of division are determined based on the time of breakdown of the marital relationship." ① can be easily solved as follows. First, the 'factual trial' refers to the first and second trials in Korea's three-trial system. The first and second trials determine the facts based on the arguments of both sides and the evidence submitted, confirm that certain 'facts' that are the subject of legal judgment exist, and then make legal judgments accordingly. In other words, it is called a ‘factual trial’ because it can judge the ‘facts’. On the other hand, the Supreme Court, the third trial, judges only the ‘law’ without touching the ‘facts’ established in the ‘factual trial’. It only involves one more legal review of the ‘factual trial’ decision. Therefore, the 3rd trial is also called the 'legal trial'. In other words, if the divorce suit progressed to the 2nd trial, the last argument date (argument closing date) of the 2nd trial, and if it stopped at the 1st trial, the last argument date of the 1st trial can be used as the standard for property division. Let's solve ② easily as well. ‘The point of breakdown of the marital relationship’ literally means the point at which the marital relationship between the couple is broken to the point where it can no longer be restored. This will vary depending on each case, but it is generally considered the time of breakdown when one party files a divorce suit. The time when separation begins is sometimes seen as the point of breakdown. In the case of financial assets such as money that is easy to spend or hide, typically bank deposits, the time when a divorce suit is filed (when the complaint is filed with the court) can be viewed as the standard time for property division. Let's look at a specific example. Let’s assume that A owned an apartment worth 1 billion won at the time she filed for divorce. Assuming that the market price of this apartment has reached 1.5 billion won by the end of the trial hearing, what is the value of this apartment in property division? The answer is 1.5 billion won. This is because the object of property division and its amount are, in principle, determined based on the closing date of the trial trial. So, what would happen if A sold the above apartment for 1.2 billion won in the middle of the lawsuit? As of the closing date of the trial trial, A is not the owner of the apartment, so the above apartment cannot be regarded as property subject to division. However, in this case, it can be said that A holds assets subject to division of 1.2 billion won, equivalent to the sale price of the apartment. Next, at the time the divorce suit was filed, A held a bank deposit of 1 billion won, and this deposit increased to 1.5 billion won by the end of the trial hearing. So, how much is the deposit subject to division? The answer is 1 billion won. This is because the standard time for division of financial assets is generally considered to be the time when a divorce suit is filed. In this way, the core of property division is the process of considering whether various individual assets such as real estate, automobiles, deposits, insurance, and stocks should be included or excluded from the division, and what their value should be, depending on the standard time. Small and Medium Business Team[View full article] Why is the timing of property division important in divorce proceedings? (Shortcut)

Controversy over Daeryun Aju and Daeryun AI service Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act vs. Replacement of the executive branch of the legal tech industry's shrinking bar association... Paying attention to the possibility of change Amid the growing craze for AI legal services, such as chatbots and brokerage platforms that combine artificial intelligence (AI) technology and legal services, debates are continuing. This is because the Korean Bar Association (Bar Association) is taking strong action against AI legal services launched by some law firms on the grounds that they violate the prohibition on advertising under the Attorney General's Act. In the law firm industry, there is a suggestion that the Korean Bar Association is setting up 'cheokhwabi' and taking a hard line, and that they should find an agreement with each other. According to the law firm industry on the 19th, the Korean Bar Association is said to be considering disciplinary action against Daeryun Law Firm's AI-based legal service 'AI Daeryun'. AI Daeryun is a service that supports lawyers in writing various legal documents and provides legal interpretation and various precedents to user questions. Daeryun explains that it has launched this service because it believes that the use of AI in the legal market is an irreversible trend of the times. The Bar Association's position is that it will examine whether 'AI Daeryun' violates the Bar Act regulations. It is said to be contrary to Article 5 of the Rules on Lawyer Advertisements (lawyers, etc. cannot make advertisements with methods or content that allow consumers to directly use programs such as artificial intelligence or connect consumers to artificial intelligence programs) enacted in October of last year. Daeryun filed a constitutional petition on the 17th of last month, claiming that these regulations infringe on the freedom of press, publication, professional practice, and business. The bar association also imposed fines and reprimands on the representative attorney and six affiliated lawyers for 'AI Daeryuk Aju', launched by Daeryuk Aju Law Firm in November last year, on the grounds of violation of the Bar Act. The Bar Association determined that there were problems with the AI ​​chatbot replacing lawyer work and the Naver advertisement placed at the bottom of the AI ​​response. Daeryuk Aju also objected to the Bar Association's disciplinary action and submitted an objection to the Ministry of Justice on the 7th of last month. The law firm industry points out that there is a risk that the Bar Association's continued use of sanctions could shrink the entire legal market. A lawyer who used to be a judge said, "Unconditionally banning AI-based legal platforms could actually result in hindering the development of the domestic legal tech industry. If we regulate domestic AI legal services, there is a high possibility that foreign AI services will eventually take over the domestic market, so we need to move in a direction that can be utilized rather than simply regulating them." However, there were also concerns that the legal market could be buried in 'AI omnipotence.' This means that following AI's incorrect judgment in sensitive disputes such as lawsuits can result in irreversible damage. Kim Jae-sik, a lawyer at Apex Law Firm, emphasized, "I am in favor of using AI as a second opinion, but I am opposed to using AI entirely while excluding human judgment." He added, "We should avoid permitting commercial use of AI-reliance." Meanwhile, as the new Chairman of the Korean Bar Association Kim Jeong-wook, who is scheduled to take office on the 24th, pledged to "form a platform and AI response consultative body," there may be a change in the atmosphere regarding the use of legal platforms and AI. Interest is gathering. An official at the Korean Bar Association said, “I think the next executive branch will follow the same lines as the current one (with respect to AI),” but added, “If the executive branch changes, won’t there be discussions about whether to maintain it in some way or find an agreement or compromise?” Reporter Kim Hyeong-jun (dhkd7979@naver.com)[View full article] [Law Firm Zip Exploration] ‘Legal AI’ stopped in front of the Bar Association… “Find a consensus” (Shortcut)

Victim of physical fight during drinking bar fight suffered 6-week injuries Prosecutors say “in the process of grabbing each other by the collar” A man who assaulted a colleague was handed over to the prosecution, but was not indicted. According to the legal community on the 19th, the Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office granted a suspended indictment to Mr. A, a man in his 60s, on charges of assault causing bodily harm on December 23 last year. Mr. A grabbed colleague B by the collar in September last year. He was accused of pushing, knocking down, assaulting, and causing injury. As a result of the investigation, it was confirmed that the two people got into an argument while drinking and got into a physical fight. As a result, Mr. B was diagnosed with a 6-week injury, including fractured ribs. Mr. A admitted to all charges. However, he claimed that he fell because he was drunk and was unable to properly control his body while grabbing Mr. B by the collar. The prosecution decided not to indict Mr. A. The prosecution said, “The degree of injury suffered by the victim in this case is not light,” but added, “It appears that the victim fell while grabbing each other by the collar and shaking, so it is difficult to place the responsibility of the injury entirely on the suspect.” He added, “The victim also stated that the other party did not intend to hurt him,” and added, “We took into consideration that the suspect acknowledged and reflected on his mistake and that we both reached an amicable agreement.” In this case, Mr. Attorney Kang Jeong-hoon of Daeryun Law Firm (Lihan), who represented the victim, said, “Unlike assault, where a prosecution cannot be filed if the victim does not want to be punished, the crime of involuntary punishment does not apply to the crime of assault causing bodily harm.” He added, “This is a case in which criminal punishment was avoided because it was acknowledged that there were extenuating circumstances in the circumstances of the case and that an agreement had been reached.” Digital Content Team[View full article] A man in his 60s who knocked down and hit a colleague was ‘not indicted’… “The suspect is not entirely responsible” (Shortcut)

Public officials who were put on trial on charges of preparing false official documents after receiving a request from a real estate development company were found not guilty in the second trial following the first trial. According to the legal community on the 17th, the 6-3 Criminal Division of the Suwon District Court held an appellate hearing on December 17 last year for seven people, including Mr. As in the first trial, he was declared not guilty. Mr. A was sent to trial in 2012 while working as a local government official on charges of receiving a favor from real estate development company B and providing convenience in obtaining construction-related permits. Company B submitted documents to the local government department stating that it would build a joint collection and delivery center on a specific site designated as an urban planning facility at the time, and the prosecution found that Mr. A wrote a false official document despite knowing that this request from Company B violated the current law. I saw it. The prosecution also claimed that Company B's joint collection and delivery center, which was primarily used as a knowledge industry center and officetel, was contrary to the purpose of urban planning facilities, which is to improve public welfare, and did not carry out change procedures to conduct development activities other than the original purpose. In addition, Company B was in a situation where development activities could not be carried out because it did not meet the requirements for designating a legitimate project implementer, and emphasized that Mr. A and others were aware of this fact but tolerated it. The first trial court found them all not guilty in January of last year. The court first mentioned that Mr. A and others did not apply the law by falsely stating the facts in the process of preparing the official document. Even if there is a mistake in applying the law incorrectly or not applying the law that should have been applied, the crime of creating a false official document cannot be established if there is no false statement about the facts that became the premise for its application. The court also said that at the time the document was prepared, there was no clear legal principle that could legally prohibit or make it impossible to designate Company B as the project implementer. In addition, the court explained that it was not easy to reach a conclusion as there were many different opinions as to whether the joint collection and delivery center that Company B wanted to build was actually in conflict with the purpose of the previous urban planning facility and whether a separate change procedure must have been followed before permission was granted. In the meantime, the court said, "The defendant, who is a public official, chose a certain view before the interpretation of the law was established and handled the work as a result, and as a result, it was illegal, and there was an intention to write false official documents at the time of the work." “It is difficult to draw a conclusion,” he added. Although the prosecution objected to this not guilty verdict, the appellate court dismissed the appeal, saying there was no error in factual or legal misunderstanding in the original judgment. Attorney Ahn Seung-jin of Yuhan Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. “We emphasized that the proposed violations of law were based on incorrect interpretation of the law,” he said. Reporter Ko Young-min (youngman@ikbc.co.kr)[View full article] Officials involved in licensing corruption found not guilty at first trial and then appeal (Shortcut)