Press Coverage

The court refuted the claim that “I grabbed her hand by surprise,” saying, “I only touched it because I was worried about her hand shaking.” The court said, “There was actually a symptom of shaking hands, and there was nothing unusual before or after the act… no intent to molest was proven.” A man accused of making surprise physical contact with a woman he met for the first time was found not guilty in court. The Seoul Central District Court found Mr. A, who was indicted on charges of forcible harassment, not guilty on the 18th of last month. In 2024, Mr. A was accused of assaulting B, a woman he met through social media, by surprise, holding her hand while they were talking offline for the first time. The prosecution believed that Mr. A was guilty and requested a summary order of a fine of 5 million won, which the court also accepted. However, Mr. A objected and requested a formal trial. During the trial, Mr. A completely denied the charges. At the time of the incident, Mr. B's hands were shaking violently, and he only held his hands to calm them down. The court found Mr. A not guilty. The court said, “The place where the incident occurred was an open road with a sign saying ‘CCTV recording in progress.’” He added, “There were many people passing by, so the actions of the two people were fully identifiable.” He continued, “At the time of the incident, the victim actually had symptoms of shaking his hands, and there was nothing unusual about the actions or reactions of the two people before and after the specific point when the defendant held her hand. Considering this, there is ample room to believe that the defendant touched the victim’s body out of concern for her condition, so it was a case of molestation.” He added, “It is difficult to say that intent has been proven.” Meanwhile, lawyer Seo Bong-ha of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, “As a result of analysis of the CCTV footage, the location was an environment where harassment could not occur as it was on the main street with all sides exposed enough for about 30 passers-by and many vehicles to pass by for 10 minutes.” He added, “Mr. “We were able to find out that there was no intention,” he explained. jckim99@sportsseoul.comReporter Kim Jong-cheol[View full article] Man accused of forcibly molesting a woman he met for the first time by holding her hand... Law: Not guilty due to “no intent” (Shortcut)

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)

The representative of a shipbuilding company's partner company was sent to the prosecution on suspicion of tax evasion by issuing false tax invoices exceeding billion won in the name of another person, but was cleared of the charges by proving that only the name was different and that he actually provided construction services. According to the legal community on the 2nd, the Tongyeong branch of the Changwon District Prosecutors' Office decided not to indict Mr. Mr. A, who runs a shipyard subcontracting company, was accused of creating a business in the name of another person, such as a family member, for the purpose of avoiding taxes, and issuing false tax invoices worth 1.4 billion won dozens of times. However, although it is true that Mr. A operated the business in the name of another person, he denied the charges, saying that it was not a fictitious transaction in which only tax invoices were issued without actual transactions. Although he ran several work teams with his family, he actually carried out the construction as one company, so he claimed that only the name of the person issuing the tax invoice was different and that he provided construction services to the main contractor normally. The prosecution determined that Mr. A's claim was true based on the content of the conversation he had with the quantity team employees via messenger and the details of remittance of the construction payment received from the main contractor to the team members. Even if the tax invoice was issued in the name of another person, the actual construction service was provided according to the information stated in the tax invoice. If services were provided, the charges were dismissed due to insufficient evidence in accordance with the Supreme Court precedent that a fake tax invoice issued without a transaction cannot be considered. Attorney Cho Ik-cheon of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, “We presented as objective evidence the fact that Mr. A’s work team actually provided construction services to the main contractor. We logically explained the multi-level subcontracting practices in the shipbuilding industry and the legal principles of Supreme Court precedents, and we were able to receive a non-prosecution by proving that there was no intention in the fictitious transaction.” said. Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] Representative of a subcontractor accused of issuing false tax invoices worth KRW 1.4 billion... Acquitted of charges by proving actual construction (link)

Expert says, "Rather than rejecting it outright, we should respond selectively by issue." On the 10th, the so-called Yellow Envelope Act was implemented in earnest and the industrial field was engulfed in turmoil. The key point is that if the main contracting company has a substantial impact on the working conditions of the subcontracting workers, it must be considered an employer and respond to collective bargaining. According to the legal community on the 31st, after the enforcement of the amendments to Articles 2 and 3 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, more than 400 subcontracting unions requested collective bargaining from the main contracting companies, and only about 10 companies accepted it. Experts warn that such inaction could actually lead to a greater legal burden. Attorney Bang In-tae of Daeryun Law Firm emphasized, “Now is not the time to worry about whether or not to agree to negotiations, but rather to consider what, with whom, and to what extent to negotiate.” The standard for a primary contractor to be recognized as an employer is whether or not it has ‘structural control over working conditions.’ Even if the main contractor does not directly instruct subcontractors to do work, they can be viewed as employers if they virtually eliminate the possibility for subcontractors to determine their own working conditions through production schedules or cost structures. Attorney Bang explained, “A typical example is when the main contractor confirms the production plan and affects the working hours of the subcontractor, or makes it difficult for the subcontractor to autonomously adjust wages through the unit price of the contract.” However, if it remains at the level of general contract management, such as presenting quality standards or negotiating delivery dates, it is difficult to view it as a user. By industry, the impact is expected to be greater in places where the multi-level subcontracting structure is established and where primary and subcontracting work is closely interconnected, such as shipbuilding, automobiles, steel, logistics, and construction. Hanwha Ocean and Hyundai Heavy Industries have already received and announced a request for negotiation from the subcontractor union. If they ignore the request for negotiation or delay, they may be subject to legal liability. The union law defines refusal or delay in collective bargaining without justifiable reasons as an unfair labor practice. Attorney Bang said, “If the primary contractor persists without responding even though there is a possibility that it can be viewed as an employer, it could lead to an application for relief from the Labor Relations Commission, an administrative lawsuit, or even criminal punishment.” However, this does not mean that all negotiation demands must be responded to. Attorney Bang advised, “Instead of blanket rejection, we need an approach that examines each issue.” If the subcontractor actually exercises independent equipment and personnel rights, and the main contractor only manages quality and delivery, employer status can be denied. Issues in which the main contractor is not involved, such as individual disciplinary action for subcontracted employees or detailed wage systems, and defects in the procedures of the union that requested negotiation are also grounds for defense. The manual released by the Ministry of Employment and Labor in February of this year also needs to be checked. The original position of viewing all employees of the main contractor and subcontractors as one bargaining unit was changed to classifying them as separate bargaining units. Attorney Bang emphasized, “Companies that have prepared to respond based on previous standards need to reexamine right now.” Attorney Bang said, “Future risks are more likely to arise from avoiding negotiations without any preparation than from incorrect negotiations,” and urged, “Management should recognize this as not just a problem in the human resources department, but as a management-wide problem where production, purchasing, safety, and legal affairs are all connected.” Reporter Hwang Jeong-won (garden@sidae.com)[View full article] Companies 'non-responsive' to demands for negotiation on the Yellow Envelope Act... Expert: “If we persist, the situation will worsen” (link)

Recently, the Seoul Administrative Court increased the number of courts dedicated to school violence from 2 to 4. This measure is in response to a steep increase in the number of related cases filed since the establishment of a dedicated court in 2023. In fact, the number of annual school violence administrative litigation cases filed with the administrative court rapidly increased from 51 in 2022 to 134 in 2025. In effect, the final destination for resolving school violence cases is the court. Behind the intensifying legal response from parents and students, there is a sense of crisis that the results of the School Violence Review Committee's disposition are directly related to the students' future. Disciplinary records from the Academic Violence Committee under the Office of Education remain in the school records and have a fatal impact on future career paths, including college entrance exams. In fact, out of 3,273 test takers with a confirmed history of school violence in the 2026 college entrance exam, 2,460, or 75%, were found to have failed. However, recently, there have been frequent cases where even simple fights or misunderstandings have become excessively controversial and resulted in unfairly severe disciplinary action. There was also a case where a playful conversation between classmates led to a transfer, but the court ruled to cancel the decision after reconciliation with the victim was recognized. This suggests that there is a clear opportunity to correct unreasonable dispositions through school violence administrative litigation. Attorney Kim Dae-won of Daeryun Law Firm (Limited) said, "For a successful school violence administrative lawsuit, it is essential to collect objective and clear evidence from the early stage. First, if you have been unfairly identified as a perpetrator or received excessive disciplinary action, you must focus on proving that the act did not meet the requirements for school violence. Reveal the context of the case through messenger conversation details, factual confirmation from surrounding students, etc., and identify procedural flaws in the school violence committee investigation process and the appropriateness of the level of disciplinary action. “There is a need to argue legally,” he explained. He continued, "On the contrary, the victimized student must prevent secondary damage caused by the offending student's harsh punishment or the school's lukewarm response. They must persuade the court by arguing the illegality of the existing disposition based on objective data such as hospital medical certificates and psychological counseling records." Attorney Kim Dae-won said, "What is important to note is that the effect of disciplinary action is not suspended just by filing a lawsuit. In order to prevent disciplinary action from being implemented or recorded in the school record during the lawsuit period, an 'application for suspension of execution' must be filed in parallel with an administrative lawsuit. All irreparable damage that will occur due to the disposition and the impact on public welfare must be disclosed in detail, and the possibility of winning the claim on the merits must be fully explained in accordance with the recent Supreme Court decision 2025mu565. In the application for suspension of execution, He said, “Elaborate preparation equivalent to that of a lawsuit on the merits is required.” He continued, "School violence administrative litigation is a serious legal dispute with a clear burden of proof. If you want to cancel or reduce disciplinary action, you must exclude subjective emotional responses. Collection of evidence based on facts, consistent statements, and systematic response according to legal procedures are the only sure ways to protect the future of students."[View full article] Increasing number of administrative lawsuits against school violence, evidence should be used instead of emotion (link)

Youngjin Ahn, attorney at Daeryun Law Firm, has frequently asked questions from clients who have been involved in voice phishing cases. The question is, why are multiple police stations across the country contacting me even though I only participated in one crime? This stems from the characteristics of voice phishing cases, where investigative jurisdiction is determined based on the region where the victim occurred. From the suspect's perspective, there is great fatigue from having to repeat the same investigation multiple times, but the real problem is that if each person goes to trial, the final sentence may be much heavier than expected. In this situation, the most important strategy in practice is 'merging', which brings together scattered cases into one. This is because it is more advantageous for the defendant to have multiple cases judged at once in one trial than to be sentenced separately. This is in accordance with the principle of handling concurrent crimes stipulated under Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and in practice, this results in the overall sentence being lowered each time a person is sentenced. In our experience, the effect of reducing sentences is approximately 20%, so merging is not a simple administrative procedure but a practical response to the defendant's right to defense. However, it is rare for investigative agencies to merge cases on their own. In particular, it is difficult to expect mergers at the police stage due to jurisdictional issues, so actual attempts at mergers begin in earnest from the point when the case is transferred to the prosecution. In this case, it is necessary to go beyond simply submitting a written document, and to explain in detail to the prosecutor's office in charge that multiple cases against the same suspect are in progress, and then collect the cases at the local jurisdiction office. This is a point where efforts must be made to unite the scattered flow of cases through active communication with investigative agencies. If some cases have already gone to trial, a more elaborate response is needed. The key is to match the ‘progress speed’ of the entire incident. For cases indicted first, the date should be adjusted so that sentencing is not carried out quickly, and for cases still under investigation, it should be urged that indictments be carried out as quickly as possible. This is because once the sentence is handed down, it becomes virtually impossible to merge it with the case indicted later. Ultimately, the aspects of voice phishing cases vary depending on how this complex timing is managed. Of course, it is not easy to unite cases scattered across the country. This is because it requires an arduous process of individually checking and coordinating the different progress of the police, prosecutors, and courts. However, the legal results when cases are merged through such strategic efforts are clearly different from those where cases are not merged. In the end, the decisive key to lowering the actual sentence in a voice phishing case lies in a carefully designed response strategy from the beginning of the investigation. ● Contributions by external writers may differ from the editorial direction of this paper. Gyeonggi Ilbo webmaster@kyeonggi.com[View full article] [Contribution] Hidden variable that influences voice phishing sentences, ‘case merging’ (link)

The court ruled that a securities company that had postponed the return of funds invested in an expired fund must compensate for the full amount of damages. In particular, it is attracting attention as an unusual ruling that breaks the existing practice of holding investors partially responsible and recognizes 100% responsibility of financial institutions. According to the legal community on the 31st, the Seoul Northern District Court ruled on the 10th that in a lawsuit claiming contract money filed by a woman in her 70s against Securities Company B, "the proceeds already received from the investment principal." The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, saying, "Pay the full amount, which is approximately 265.88 million won. This is a result of fully acknowledging the actual damages claimed by the plaintiff. In 2019, Mr. A was introduced to an employee of B Securities Company in the same branch through his main bank. At that time, the employee recommended a real estate fund, a first-class ultra-high risk private equity fund that could result in a loss of the entire principal, and Mr. A gave 304.5 million won to it. I invested. The problem arose when a dispute with movie theater tenants arose due to the COVID-19 incident and the sale of real estate fell through. Even though the originally set fund maturity date was exceeded twice, Mr. A ultimately did not receive his investment back. Accordingly, Mr. A filed a lawsuit claiming that he did not receive a proper explanation about the ultra-high risk structure of the product or the possibility of principal loss at the time of investment, and that the basic principle of recommending a product appropriate for the investor's situation was not followed. On the other hand, Securities Company B completely denied its obligation to return the investment. Since the real estate sale was not completed and the fund was not cashed out, the contract cannot be considered terminated. In addition, the securities company even refused to request that “if it is difficult to return the cash, at least hand over the fund certificate as is.” As the Capital Markets Act was revised and the minimum investment standard for private equity funds was raised to 500 million won, Mr. A, who invested 300 million won, was deemed 'unqualified'. However, the court ruled in Mr. A's favor. The court acknowledged the violation of the duty of explanation and the principle of suitability under the Capital Markets Act, saying, "The defendant relied only on information received inappropriately from the bank without knowing the latest information of the investor, and unreasonably recommended ultra-high-risk products to the plaintiff, an elderly and vulnerable financial consumer." He continued, "The limit on the investment standard amount is only a regulation applied when issuing a new fund, and cannot be applied at the stage of settling and returning existing contracts." “It is against the principles of good faith to reduce the amount of compensation for unconfirmed responsibility,” he said, and ruled for full compensation. Attorney Nam Kwon-yul of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented the plaintiff, said, “The plaintiff was in a desperate situation where he had to support the medical expenses of his unconscious son and the living expenses of his family on behalf of his widowed spouse.” He pointed out, “The recommendation of an ultra-high-risk product that does not fit the financial purpose at all to vulnerable financial consumers in a trustworthy space such as a bank branch is a clear mis-sale.” “This ruling, which breaks the customary offset of investor negligence and recognizes 100% responsibility of financial institutions, is a very meaningful precedent that demonstrates the court’s strong will that it can no longer grant impunity to perpetrators,” he explained. #incident #court #privatefund #fullcompensation Shin Min-ji (sourminjee@ikbc.co.kr)[View full article] Incomplete sale of private equity funds to elderly investors in their 70s... Court rules for ‘full compensation’ (link)

An employee of a government- and local government-funded organization who was suspected of writing and submitting false official documents in connection with a large-scale national project was cleared of the charges after a prosecutorial investigation. According to the legal community on the 30th, the Masan Branch of the Changwon District Prosecutors' Office acquitted Mr. A, a man who had been sent on charges of obstruction of official duties on the 13th, due to insufficient evidence. Mr. A, who worked at a foundation that was a government- and local government-funded organization, was admitted to a theme park selected as a national project in 2019. While in charge of licensing-related work, he applied for a ‘pre-construction use permit’ from the relevant ministry. During this process, Mr. A was accused of writing the completion rate as 100% in the supervisor’s opinion and arbitrarily fabricating and submitting an image of the seal of a private sector supervisor who was not present at the time. At the time, in reality, construction in some areas had not been completed. Accordingly, local government B, which was in charge of management and supervision, accused Mr. A of interfering with the legitimate performance of public officials' duties by falsifying documents as if the entire process had been completed, despite knowing that there were unconstructed parts. However, Mr. A denied the charges. At the time of applying for a use permit, the supervisory director had already confirmed and stamped appropriate construction on the ‘Construction Project Management Report’, which is a higher-level document, so he only believed in this and processed the work, and there was no intention to deceive. The prosecution also accepted this claim. It is difficult to say that Mr. A only recognized that the construction was completed based on the construction project management report, and had the intention of making a false statement. The prosecution also determined that since the government agency with final approval authority was already aware of the fact that some facilities were inadequate through on-site inspections, the written opinion submitted by Mr. A could not be considered to have influenced the public official to the extent of causing a misunderstanding or distorting the review judgment. Attorney Jeon Kang-woo of the Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, “The crime of obstruction of official duties can only be established by taking advantage of the ignorance of the other public official, but in this case, the crime cannot be established because the government office in charge is already aware of the current situation. He said, “We were able to receive a decision not to prosecute by carefully explaining that the work in question was not an arbitrary act, but normal work according to the order of approval and that there was no intention to make false information.” Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] Public institution employee acquitted of false submission of national project documents... There is no intention, and the competent authority is aware of the deficiencies (click here)

Daeryun Law Firm, which provides integrated services ranging from response to major lawsuits to preventive consulting and response to defect appraisals to protect the contractor's right to defend in the plaintiff-centered defect litigation market, announced on the 30th that it has officially launched the 'Defect Litigation Center' to protect the legal rights and interests of construction companies and provide a systematic response system in construction defect disputes. The purpose of the new center is to strengthen the contractor's right to defense in the existing defect lawsuit market, which is biased toward the plaintiffs (residents' representative meetings, etc.). Daeryun plans to provide customized risk management services to construction companies through defendant-specific strategies and preventive consulting. Daeryun has a team of experts in each field, led by Center Director Kim Kwang-deok, who has nearly 20 years of practical experience in construction companies and medium-to-large law firms. Attorney Park Jeong-gyu, who has experience as a Supreme Court trial researcher and construction court judge, Kang Dae-hee, who has distinguished himself in advising construction companies, and Kim Hyeong-jin, who has numerous achievements including large-scale construction projects. A lawyer joined to increase professionalism. Here, attorney Seon Yoo-ju, who specializes in redevelopment and reconstruction and is registered with the Korean Bar Association, and attorney Shin Hye-jin, who has extensive experience in providing legal advice to public institutions such as LH, plan to establish a collaborative system to resolve the grievances of construction companies in a three-dimensional way. The Defect Litigation Center goes beyond simple litigation and provides integrated services such as defect prevention consulting, construction contract review, and defect appraisal response. In particular, at the defect evaluation stage, which is the core of litigation, we focus on calculating the reasonable scope of liability by closely analyzing various reasons for limitation of liability, such as design negligence or usage negligence. We have also strengthened our internal infrastructure to respond effectively. In connection with the evidence investigation center in Daeryun, we secure objective physical evidence such as construction records and supervision reports and establish a logical defense system. At the same time, we plan to cooperate with carefully selected defect appraisal companies to share the latest precedents and technology trends and provide services that combine technology and law to construction companies. Daeryun Center Director Kim Gwang-deok said, “Due to the nature of projects, stable risk management is essential for construction companies,” and emphasized, “Based on Daeryun’s unique ability to secure evidence and technology network, we will become a partner that protects construction companies’ legitimate defense rights and resolves management uncertainties.” Reporter Kim Hee-guk kukie@kookje.co.kr[View full article] Kukje Newspaper - Daeryun Law Firm Launches Defect Litigation Center... Strengthening construction company response system (click here) Tax Ilbo - Daeryun Law Firm Launches Defect Litigation Center... Strengthening construction company response system (click here) Aju Economic Daily - [Law Firm Lounge] Daeryun launches ‘Defect Litigation Center’ specializing in construction company defense (Go here)

Construction work involves numerous steps, including design, construction, and supervision, and involves multiple parties, from the owner to the subcontractor. The longer the construction period, the greater the possibility that unexpected variables will occur, which will soon lead to acute disputes. In particular, construction disputes require consideration of labor, materials, and civil complaints issues as well as interference with pre-post processes, so early response is paramount. The most effective way to win a construction dispute is prevention, and the first step is drafting a contract. When reviewing drawings and contracts, it is essential to carefully consider and codify all risks that may arise for each process after construction begins. In particular, specific and clear details must be written to prevent differences in interpretation between parties in the future. In addition, due to the long-term nature of construction, numerous changes are bound to occur on site. However, 'verbal agreements', which are commonly used in practical settings, inevitably face limitations in proof in the event of a post-facto dispute. Even minor changes must be recorded in writing and signed by both parties. In particular, since the relationship between changes to a contract becomes the basis for its effectiveness, it is also necessary to establish a basis, such as by writing process meeting minutes, or to clearly record the date and time of the change. If construction is suspended or resumed, the reason and date and time, and for delays in construction, the cause and responsibility must be written in writing. If the cause of the delay lies with the orderer, this must be officially notified and recorded in order to secure an advantageous position in future liquidated damages disputes. In addition, in the event of a dispute, it is necessary to specify in advance in the contract which method to use among mediation, arbitration, and litigation to establish a rapid response system. Ultimately, the most certain strategy to win a construction lawsuit is to closely reflect all predictable scenarios in the contract and make sure to keep all changes in the construction process in writing. If necessary, it is most important to take preemptive action to eliminate the seeds of potential disputes from the contract conclusion stage through the assistance of legal experts. This is because thorough contract writing and thorough change management are the surest means of preventing the possibility of disputes and the best way to secure an advantageous position. Reporter Lee Dong-oh (canon35@mt.co.kr)[View full article] [Contribution] The key to winning a construction dispute lies in thorough contract writing and change management (link)