Press Coverage

Yanolja refuses refund if reservation is canceled 10 minutes after payment... Consumer Litigation Court recommends that Yanolja and the hotel pay half of the claimed amount. Yanolja, which refused to refund the reservation deposit, will now refund the reservation deposit. The court found Yanolja's rule that refunds are only possible when cancellation is made within 10 minutes of payment through the accommodation app as unfair. On the 14th, the Seoul Central District Court issued a decision recommending a settlement ordering Yanolja and one other person (hotel) to pay half of the plaintiff's claim amount. The deadline for payment is the 20th of this month. Plaintiff A, who filed the lawsuit, purchased a hotel accommodation ticket through the Yanolja app in October 2023, but tried to cancel the accommodation contract because the schedule was changed in two hours. Yanolja responded to the plaintiff, saying, “It is possible to cancel the reservation, but a cancellation fee equivalent to 100% of the reservation deposit will be incurred.” In fact, cancellation was impossible. Mr. A requested a refund again, citing that not much time had passed, but Yanolja took the position, "No cancellation fee will be incurred only if cancellation is made within 10 minutes of the reservation, and if cancellation is made after that, no refund is possible without any exception." The court recommended, "Pay half of the plaintiff's claim amount by the 20th of this month, but if the deadline is exceeded, delay damages at 12% per annum should be added and paid." The industry believes that the court is essentially acknowledging that Yanolja's regulations are a violation of the Electronic Commerce Act. It was judged that the rule that a full refund is only possible when canceled on the application screen within 10 minutes of payment and that a 100% cancellation fee is charged after 10 minutes was unfair was not fair. Attorney Kim Jin-woo of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented the lawsuit, said, "I understand that if a refund is made with a short period of time left before the reservation date, Yanolja will not have time to resell the product, but 10 minutes is too short," and "Cancellation only within 10 minutes is extremely difficult for the seller." “It is an advantageous and unfavorable condition for consumers,” he explained. [View full article] - [Exclusive] Court orders Yanolja, which refused to refund, to “refund even if canceled after 10 minutes” (Shortcut)

Recently, in order to avoid women's false accusation of sexual violence, an application (app) that specifies mutual consent before sexual intercourse has emerged, raising interest and concerns. Along with the expectation that ‘reckless and false accusation crimes will disappear’, there are also concerns that ‘there are concerns about sexual violence caused by forced consent.’ This app, which was launched last July, is advertised as being the first in Korea to have been consulted by a lawyer, and has recorded more than 1,000 downloads to date despite being a paid service. However, it is difficult to prove ‘voluntary consent’, so recognition of its effectiveness is uncertain. The 'Sexual Relations Agreement' on the app contains the following: 'In concluding this contract, the proposer (A) and the acceptor (A) agree to mutual skinship and sexual relations.' Here, skinship is defined as 'covering all conversations and physical contact using sexual expressions.' The idea is that if the app user sends a consent form to the other person's cell phone and the other person verifies it, they are considered to have consented to sexual intercourse and cannot be held responsible in the future. In other words, it is a device to prevent legal controversies that may arise in the future by leaving evidence that both parties agreed to sexual relations. Does this kind of mutual agreement have legal effect in criminal cases such as sexual assault? To conclude, this app may be useful in the sense that it leaves behind evidence that it was not sexual assault, but it does not seem easy to receive complete legal immunity simply by consenting through the app. Kim Dong-jin, a lawyer at Daeryun Law Firm who spoke with Segye Ilbo on the 15th, advised, “I don’t think I will be able to receive complete immunity legally, but I think it will have some effect.” Attorney Kim said, "We need to look at two perspectives," and added, "Assault or threats are actions that go against the other person's will. If there is evidence that it was done in some way, it can be seen that it may not have been assault or threats." He explained, “Even if it is not this app, if you look at recent precedents, the number of cases where the suspect or victim has to prove it directly has increased more than before,” and “It is difficult for the suspect to reveal that the other person consented. From this perspective, if you can prove that the consent through the app was not coercive, it may be a little more helpful legally.” However, he pointed out that “complete immunity is difficult,” and added, “Even if there was consent in the app, there are cases of sexual assault by consent. When making a ruling, the court looks at everything, including whether consent is based on behavior or intent.” In other words, regardless of whether the app was used, a person can be found not guilty when it can be proven that there was no consent or coercion, so the app also needs this process. Unfortunately, if you cannot prove this, you cannot be free from the damage of false accusation. [View full article] - Will the ‘sexual consent app’ false accusation crimes disappear? (Shortcut)

The so-called ‘Tattoo Justice Act’, which legalizes tattoo procedures by non-medical personnel, was once again proposed to the National Assembly last month. There have been several movements to legalize tattoos, but each time they have failed to pass the National Assembly threshold. However, with the re-enactment of the ‘Tattoo Judiciary Act’, attention is focused on whether to allow unlicensed procedures. Currently, non-medical tattoo procedures are illegal. This is because the Supreme Court defined tattooing as a medical practice in 1992, and its impact has continued to this day. At the time, the Supreme Court considered tattooing to be an activity that could pose health and hygiene risks if not performed by a medical professional. Accordingly, tattooing by an unlicensed tattoo operator constitutes a violation of Article 27, Paragraph 1 of the Medical Service Act (imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than 50 million won) and Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Special Measures Act on the Control of Health Crimes (imprisonment for life or more than 2 years, a fine of not less than 1 million won but not more than 10 million won). However, as the demand for cosmetic procedures such as eyebrow tattooing has recently increased, there has been continued criticism that there is a large gap between the law and reality. According to the Ministry of Health and Welfare's '2023 Survey Results Report on the Status of Tattoo Users', more than half of the people who have received tattoos or semi-permanent makeup responded that 'non-medical personnel should be allowed to perform tattoos.' As social discussions surrounding the legalization of tattoo procedures continue, a public participation trial in this regard was held in May. The Daegu District Court sentenced Mr. A (24), a tattooist, to one year in prison, two years of probation, and a fine of 1 million won for giving eyebrow tattooing to a customer even though he was not qualified to be a medical professional. The jury at the time was made up of seven members of the general public, four of whom found guilty and the remaining three found not guilty. The jury and court sided with the prosecution's argument that eyebrow tattooing was a ‘medical practice.’ However, some lower courts ruled not guilty, which went against existing Supreme Court precedents. The Eastern Branch of the Busan District Court found not guilty a woman in her 20s who was indicted on charges of performing semi-permanent makeup without a medical license in December last year. At the time, the court ruled, "A whopping 30 years have passed since the Supreme Court's mainstream ruling on eyebrow surgery. As of 2018, the cumulative number of people who have experienced semi-permanent makeup is 10 million. In particular, 'eyebrow tattooing' has become common regardless of age and gender," and ruled, "Illegalization actually promotes illegality and danger and threatens the public's health." Even before this, in the Cheongju District Court in 2022, both the first and second trials found the director of a beauty academy who performed eyebrow tattooing not guilty. Ultimately, confusion is expected to continue for the time being as conflicting rulings have been issued within the legal community regarding the permission of unlicensed procedures. In particular, as the Supreme Court is currently conducting an en banc hearing on another tattoo case, it remains to be seen whether a decision will be made that will overturn the existing precedent. However, as the tattoo operator's practice was recently found guilty through a public participation trial, caution is still needed regarding unlicensed tattoo practice. For this reason, if you are in a situation where related charges have been applied, it can be said that the best alternative is to get help from an expert. [View full article] - Re-enactment of the ‘Tattoo Criminal Act’... Crossroads in allowing unlicensed procedures (Go here)

Daeryun Law Firm (Lihan), which provides specialized legal services for the pharmaceutical industry, including patent and trademark intellectual property protection, announced on the 14th that it signed an MOU with pharmaceutical manufacturer Hiple Life Science Co., Ltd. At the MOU signing ceremony held at the headquarters of Hiple Co., Ltd. located in Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si on the 12th, Daeryun's Corporate Legal Group Head Won Won-il and Hiple Life Science CEO Cho Jae-min attended. Hiple Life Science is a subsidiary of Hiple Co., Ltd. and is a pharmaceutical company with 55 years of business established in 1970. Hiple Life Science, which has grown as ‘Korea’s only company specializing in kidney disease treatment,’ is currently expanding its scope to produce various specialized treatment drugs and distributing them to domestic and foreign pharmaceutical companies. Through this MOU, Daeryun plans to provide specialized legal services to the pharmaceutical industry, such as ▲ legal advice on transaction contracts, ▲ review of domestic and foreign drug regulations, ▲ product dispute resolution and litigation support, to Hiple Life Science. In particular, as Hiple Life Science is working on developing new drugs. The policy is to provide legal assistance from a comprehensive perspective by collaborating with professional teams belonging to each group, including Daeryun's pharmaceutical bio and healthcare team and intellectual property rights team. Jae-min Cho, CEO of Hypl Life Science Co., Ltd., said, "I am satisfied with the legal help I am receiving by signing an MOU with Hypl, and expressed my intention to sign an MOU to obtain additional support for my subsidiaries. In the pharmaceutical industry, intellectual property rights are a core asset of a company and the basis of its competitiveness. Daeryun's professional legal services with extensive related experience. “Through this support, we will be able to reduce legal risks in domestic and overseas markets and promote stable growth,” said Won Il Won, head of the corporate legal group at Daeryun Law Firm. “Through this MOU, we will focus on providing necessary legal advice to Hiple Life Science and increasing competitiveness,” adding, “Daeryun is systematically protecting corporate rights such as patents and trademarks along with operating the corporate legal group and intellectual property rights group. “We will work hard to ensure that Hiple Life Science’s rights are not infringed upon in the pharmaceutical industry and help with stable business expansion,” he said. [View full article] - MOU with Daeryun Law Firm and Hiple Life Science (Go here)

Choi Yong-Hwan, Senior Attorney at Daeryun Law Firm (Limited) Legal Column A building delivery lawsuit is a lawsuit in which a landlord requests delivery of a tenant who illegally occupies the property even though he has lost the right to occupy the property. Usually, a lawsuit is filed when the lessee continues to occupy the property without permission, such as late payment of rent or delivery of the object due to expiration of the contract. If the tenant occupies the property without permission and does not vacate after a just termination of the contract, the landlord is bound to suffer great economic losses. In addition, there are many cases where landlords suffer because they cannot simply demand eviction due to legal protection measures for tenants. For example, there is a story of a landlord who waited for rent payment for several months considering the tenant's circumstances. The landlord sent several letters to the tenant requesting payment of overdue rent, but did not receive any response. Accordingly, as a last resort, a lawsuit was prepared. As a result of the lawsuit, the landlord was able to safely receive a decision to hand over the building. On the 8th of last month, the Changwon District Court ruled in favor of the landlord in the 'building delivery lawsuit' filed by the commercial landlord against the tenant for non-payment of monthly rent. The court ruled that “the lease agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was legally terminated,” and that “the defendants had an obligation to deliver the building to the plaintiff.” The issues in the lawsuit can be broadly divided into two. First, the first issue was ‘whether or not there are arrears’. The plaintiff and the defendant signed a lease agreement for the property in this case in 2020 with a rental deposit of 20 million won and a monthly rent of 1 million won. The defendants had delayed payment of rent due to financial difficulties, but the plaintiff delayed the payment date in consideration of the defendants' difficult circumstances. However, the plaintiff did not receive the monthly rent even though the promised date had passed. The increased monthly rent amounted to 9 months' worth, and the defendants did not even pay the commercial management fee. The second is the 'legitimate notice of termination of the lease'. According to Article 10, Paragraph 8 of the Commercial Lease Protection Act, if the rent arrears reach three periods, the lessor can immediately terminate the lease even if there is any remaining contract remaining. In the case of the plaintiff, the arrears had already reached the 9th period, and the termination of the contract was notified through proof of contents. As the plaintiff's legal representative, I clearly presented the legal basis for the reason for the termination of the contract and requested real estate certification based on this. Thanks to this, the plaintiff was able to have the right to claim the return of the object recognized as the owner of the property. As in the case above, it is not difficult to see difficulties due to the tenant's loss of contact in a lease contract relationship. At this time, caution is required because if an appropriate response is not taken, such as a contract termination notice or eviction request, to a tenant who illegally occupies the real estate, the landlord may face backlash, such as a claim for damages. Additionally, responding by blindly visiting the tenant or unilaterally notifying the termination without examining the contract termination conditions may become an obstacle to legal action in the future. Typically, real estate litigation can take several months, so it is necessary to draw up a strategy from the beginning with the advice of a real estate attorney. [View full article] - If your right to ‘no contact with the tenant’ has been violated, you must file a lawsuit to take over the building (Go here)

The prohibition on unauthorized distribution is the same… Cases of complaints due to stricter social awareness ↑ Self-employed people say, "The era of flyers is over... It's hard to get out of the app." Self-employed people in the restaurant industry are trying to come up with alternatives such as distributing leaflets in apartments to escape the burden of delivery app fees, but some say it is not easy. Some franchise companies are strengthening their apps to cope with the burden of delivery app fees. On the other hand, self-employed people complain that it is difficult to promote without an app. This is because the advertising effect through distributing flyers is not great, and the number of cases of being accused of distributing flyers without permission has increased compared to the past. Recently, in the self-employed community 'I'm sick, I'm the boss', a story was posted about someone who was accused of property damage after handing out flyers directly in an apartment complex to promote them in order to get out of the delivery app. Person A, who posted the story, said, "A friend who used to curse at the delivery app said he would promote it by distributing flyers, so he spread out the (apartment) complex and even got a part-time job. “I sprayed it, but two weeks later, I received a call from the management office and a warning,” he said. “Yesterday, I got a call from the police station saying that I was accused of disrupting business and damaging property. Now, it seems absolutely impossible to go back to the era of iron bags.” Comments on the post included, “There is a desire to go to the era of leaflets, but this is the era of apps,” and “The carrot advertisement is a little better.” It ran. The post said, "It is common sense to ban the unauthorized distribution of advertisements. The store's image will be lost, it will be boycotted, and a fine will be levied." There were also responses saying, "Promotion must be done within the established framework in a way that does not cause harm to others." According to Kim Da-eun, an attorney at Daeryun Law Firm, unauthorized distribution of flyers inside apartments, etc. can be punished under Article 3, Paragraph 1, Item 9 of the Misdemeanor Punishment Act. Anyone who commits acts such as arbitrarily posting advertisements on other people's or organizations' homes, artificial structures, cars, etc., will be punished with a fine of less than 100,000 won, detention, or a minor fine. In fact, even before the advent of delivery apps, there have been complaints and punishments for cases of unauthorized posting of flyers inside apartments without permission from the management office. Attorney Kim said, "Regardless of the emergence of delivery apps, there are many regulations that existed before the emergence of delivery apps, and many advertisements were attached inside apartments before the emergence of delivery apps. “It seems that there was an atmosphere of customary acceptance, so there were many people who did not even know that it was a subject of punishment,” he said. “It is true that once a complaint is made, it is difficult to avoid punishment without actively fighting it legally.” [View full article] - Fines for distributing flyers incorrectly... Self-employed people say, “It’s hard to get out of the delivery app” (Shortcut)

A woman in her 30s who defrauded the victim of tens of millions of won by defrauding her of 78 million won through a 'romance scam' method and got married was sentenced to probation. Judge Moon Jong-cheol, Criminal Division 7 of the Incheon District Court, sentenced A, a woman accused of fraud, to 10 months in prison, 2 years of probation, and ordered her to perform 120 hours of community service. Ms. A is a BJ on a streaming platform. He was accused of embezzling 78 million won from his ex-boyfriend, Mr. B, from March 2022 to June of the following year. They dated since 2016 and broke up around 2019. Three years later, Mr. A contacted Mr. B again and began demanding money, saying, “I need money due to unreasonable business.” Afterwards, Mr. A told Mr. B, “You can just get married and live together and pay it back.” He even urged me to take out a loan. However, at the time, it was revealed that Mr. A was already married to a man other than Mr. B. The court ruled that Mr. A's actions were intentional. The court pointed out that “the defendant deceived the victim into thinking that he was in a romantic relationship with the victim on the premise of marriage,” and that it was “a crime that took advantage of a personal relationship of trust.” He then said, “The period of the crime was long, the amount of damage was not small, and the damage was not fully recovered.” However, the court added that it decided the sentence by taking into account the fact that Mr. A acknowledged and reflected on his crime and the fact that he reached an agreement with Mr. B. Daeryun Law Firm (Yuhan), which served as Mr. B’s legal representative, said, “Mr. “This is a typical case of a romance scam,” he said. He added, “He stole a large amount of money by taking advantage of the victim’s favor towards him in a situation where he had no ability or will to repay, so it clearly constitutes fraud under the criminal law.” He added, “It appears that the court also acknowledged this and found him guilty.” [View full article] - "I'm planning to register my marriage"... BJ receives probation for stealing a large amount of money under the pretext of marriage (link)

The court ruled that there was no debt for credit cards issued in stolen names. On September 30, the Seoul Central District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by customer A against the credit card company to confirm the non-existence of debt. Mr. A, who was running a business, belatedly found out in 2021 that an employee had stolen his name and had been issued a credit card. As a result of checking the usage history with the credit card company, a balance of approximately 28 million won was accumulated for Mr. A. Mr. A denied the fact that the card was issued. It is said that the employee was issued a card using his/her own mobile phone and ID card. Therefore, it was argued that there was no obligation to repay the usage fee. However, the credit card company's position was different. It is confirmed that a direct phone call was made with Mr. A at the time of signing the contract, and that the card was delivered to Mr. A's workplace. In addition, he emphasized that the employee's unauthorized use of the credit card was caused by Mr. A's careless management of personal information and that he had an obligation to repay the debt. The court ruled in Mr. A's favor. The court said, “If you look at the call records submitted by the credit card company, the voice in the recording does not match the voice of Mr. A,” adding, “Rather, he is closer to an employee impersonating Mr. A.” At the same time, he explained that “the address to which the card was sent is not Mr. A’s place of business but the employee’s residence,” and that it cannot be considered that Mr. A entered into a contract directly. At the same time, “as long as the credit card contract for the plaintiff is not valid, the ‘management negligence’ claimed by the card company does not materialize,” and ruled, “there is no debt for the use of the credit card in question.” Lee Ki-eun, an attorney at Daeryun Law Firm (Limited), who represented the plaintiff, said, “The card company acted legally when issuing credit cards. “You must verify your identity according to the procedures,” he said. “When issuing a card, you must carefully consider whether the person requesting issuance is the one who received it.” Attorney Lee added, “Due to the credit card company’s mistake, the credit card was issued and delivered to an employee, not Mr. A.” He added, “In addition, we were able to obtain a reasonable result by taking into account the fact that the employee acknowledged that he had obtained and used the card by stealing Mr. A’s name.” [View full article] - A card secretly created by an employee... Court: “Issuance is invalid, no obligation to repay money” (Shortcut)

Pizza Hut Korea loses lawsuit related to franchise fee difference... Shaking up the distribution industry, strengthening the franchise team within the corporate legal group... Daeryun Law Firm announced on the 12th that it has strengthened the franchise team within its corporate law group in preparation for the aftermath of Korea Pizza Hut's franchise fee differential lawsuit. Previously, the Seoul High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by Korea Pizza Hut franchise owners against the headquarters in September last year to claim the return of unfair profits. It was unfair for the headquarters to supply essential items such as raw and subsidiary materials without the consent of franchisees at a price difference. This is the purpose. Pizza Hut Korea, which is in danger of having to return more than 21 billion won in franchise fees, recently applied to the court to initiate rehabilitation procedures. Although the Supreme Court's final judgment is still pending, this lawsuit has caused great confusion in the franchise industry. This is because a significant number of franchise headquarters in Korea are making profits by charging differential franchise fees. In fact, it is known that franchise owners of some franchise companies are preparing related lawsuits. Daeryun announced its policy to reorganize the franchise team within the corporate legal group to reflect this industry situation and actively respond to related lawsuits. The franchise team is comprised of lawyers specializing in various fields, led by attorney Won-il Won, a former judge at the Seoul Central District Court and former head of the legal department at POSCO Future M. Attorney Won-sang Kim, who represented franchise owners in the Pizza Hut unfair profit refund lawsuit, The team is supported by lawyers Na Chang-soo, Shin Jong-soo, Park Seong-yoon, Kim Da-eun, Park Jong-woo, and Jeong Woo-young. They plan to provide higher quality legal services based on their experience working in various related organizations such as the Korea Fair Trade Mediation Service and the Franchise Business Dispute Mediation Committee. Won Hyeong-il, head of the Daeryun Corporate Legal Group, said, "It is expected that many similar lawsuits will be filed in the aftermath of the Korea Pizza Hut incident." “We strengthened the team by bringing in additional lawyers with experience,” he explained. Won-sang Kim, a lawyer from the franchise team who actually participated in the Korea Pizza Hut lawsuit, said, “The gist of the court’s ruling is that franchise fees that are not agreed upon in advance are unfair profits.” He added, “Both the franchise owner and the franchise headquarters need to understand these issues well and establish a customized strategy.” He added, “The Daeryun franchise team has completed legal preparations to respond to any case.” added. [View full article] Jose Ilbo - 'Korea Pizza Hut Aftermath' expected to be filed... Daeryun Law Firm Strengthens Franchise Team (Shortcut) Financial Today - Franchise industry worries about lawsuits after Korea Pizza Hut loses KRW 21 billion (Shortcut)

"I heard from the company that the day after my childcare leave, I will be clearing my desk. A new employee will be sitting there. I regret it." Mr. A, who recently took childcare leave due to his wife's birth, complains that he is afraid of the next six months. The company said they encouraged childcare leave, but as soon as he went on leave, they immediately cleared his place and put another employee in his place. Mr. A, who heard about this situation from his colleagues, complained, “I don’t feel at peace.” This is due to the belief that there may be disadvantages in personnel management or discrimination after reinstatement. As the low birth rate and aging population become more serious, the government is trying hard to increase the birth rate by encouraging child care leave, but in some parts of our society, there are many people like Mr. A who are concerned about child care leave. In fact, on the 10th, the day before the civic group Workplace Gapjil 119, there were many people who received counseling with concerns similar to Mr. A's in the report 'Suggestions for a workplace where pregnancy, birth, and childcare are possible', which included information on the current status of power abuse and system improvement regarding childbirth and childcare. As a result of the organization's analysis of 41 identified cases among e-mail reports related to pregnancy, childbirth, and childcare abuse received from January last year to May this year, the most common type of disadvantage (duplicate counting) was 'workplace bullying' at 63.4% (26 cases). In addition, 'unfair evaluation/appointment' (31.7%, 13 cases), 'refusal to work shortened hours, etc.' (24.3%, 10 cases), 'dismissal/recommended resignation' (12.2%, 5 cases), and 'refusal to use annual leave' (12.2%, 5 cases). Eight cases of power abuse that the organization found through public recruitment also said that it was not easy to use even basic systems such as maternity leave and childcare leave. Person A said, “When I said I would use childcare leave following maternity leave, the manager was very displeased and tried to persuade me not to use the leave.” In relation to this, the organization argued, “It is difficult to solve the problem simply by improving the maternal rights system and emphasizing the necessity of ‘resolving low birth rates.’ We need to raise overall working conditions and increase the effectiveness of the system from the perspective of gender equality.” He went on to point out, “Korean society is establishing a system to protect women’s labor rights and maternal and paternal rights, but this is not properly reaching the ground level.” Daeun Kim, a lawyer at Daeryun Law Firm related to parental leave, said in a phone call with Segye Ilbo that day, “The current parental leave system is continuously being reformed according to the needs of those eligible, and as social consensus on this is increasing, some companies are starting to guarantee the parental leave system as a basic rule, but are also proactively implementing a more active system for those on parental leave.” He gave an example, “In fact, at Daeryun Law Firm, the existing parental leave system is guaranteed as standard, and in addition, work from home is also guaranteed to ensure both child care and maintenance of income level.” “Nevertheless, there has not yet been a consensus on maternal protection, so there are many companies that do not properly comply with it. As a result, sanctions against companies that do not guarantee childcare leave are becoming increasingly stronger, and the standards for determining treatment for those on childcare leave are also becoming increasingly stringent and sophisticated,” he said. “With regard to work upon reinstatement after childcare leave, it is stipulated that after the end of childcare leave, employers must return to work that pays the same or equivalent level of wages as before the leave. He pointed out that “returning to the ‘same work’ as before should be considered as a priority.” However, he said, “If there are unavoidable reasons such as organizational reorganization, it is possible to return to another job, but even in this case, it is required that the job pays the same level of wages.” He added, “Therefore, rather than waiting for a report, it would be helpful to proactively inspect whether each company is properly guaranteeing this system or to implement a system such as providing government subsidies or corporate evaluation benefits to companies that sufficiently guarantee the parental leave system, so that each company can actively guarantee parental leave on its own.” [View full article] - “As soon as I took childcare leave, my position was taken away” Parental leave is still difficult (link)