Press Coverage

Daeryun Law Firm (Limited) (Managing Attorney Kook-il Kim) announced on the 18th that it will strengthen the Litigation Management Center for customized management of accepted cases. The goal is to further develop the existing litigation management system to handle case management within the corporation more efficiently and systematically. Currently, the Daeryun Litigation Management Center is centered around the Seoul headquarters, which is the control tower. It is linked to offices across the country, so the head office manages and inspects all cases in progress at each regional office. This is to increase the success rate by systematically reviewing the case from the perspective of the court or investigative agency before an investigation or lawsuit is conducted. At the time of acceptance, a minimum of 2 to a maximum of 20 lawyers are assigned depending on the type and difficulty of the case. When necessary, experts in other fields, such as accountants and tax accountants, are also brought in. Even if a case is taken over by a local office, the head office manages it in general and designates an appropriate lawyer for each case, making it possible to provide more professional legal services. Daeryun plans to designate a large number of lawyers from the Litigation Management Center as former chief judges, and devote themselves to thoroughly managing the entire implementation process, such as judging the case more accurately and clearly determining the direction of the lawsuit. Previously, cases were reviewed through discussions between multiple lawyers. The strengthened Litigation Management Center will have many lawyers who were former chief judges with long legal experience, allowing them to look more closely at the entire process, including writing and trials. CEO Kuk-il Kim said, "Currently, some law firms are keeping a close eye on various chronic issues in the legal field, such as delay in litigation and negligence in carrying out lawsuits. This is why experienced chief judge-level lawyers lead lawyers in specialized teams and are in charge of overall cases to ensure that there are no problems in carrying out lawsuits." “By closely examining ongoing cases within the corporation, we have improved the quality of written and trial processing,” he said. [View full article] Jose Ilbo - Daeryun Law Firm Strengthens Litigation Management Center... Deployment of a large number of lawyers who were former chief judges (Shortcut) ENews Today - Daeryun Law Firm strengthens litigation management center...Customized management for each lawsuit (Shortcut) Korea Economic Daily - Jipyong, joint workshop with Singapore International Mediation Center... Daeryun Strengthens Litigation Management [Law & Biz Briefing] (Go to) Segye Ilbo - Daeryun Law Firm Strengthens Litigation Management Center... Customized management for each lawsuit (Go here)

Consumer Damage Relief Applications 'No. 1' with 523 applications over 3 years Some products include free cancellation within 10 minutes and an aggravated cancellation fee. High profit margin due to rapid increase in commission income. #Consumer A, who lives in Seoul, recently made a reservation for lodging through Yeogi How. After making a reservation in the early morning, I canceled it the next morning, but was informed by the company that "if the regulations are followed, it is difficult to refund the already applied fee." Yeogi Eottae said, "We will inform you after checking other options." Initially, they said they would check at 2 PM and give an answer, but they remained silent the next day. Consumer complaints about lodging platforms, including Yeogi Eottae, have been going on for several years. Like Mr. A, people who booked accommodations but clicked the wrong cancellation button or simply changed their mind canceled the stay, and the majority of complaints occurred when it was impossible to get a refund or withdraw the cancellation decision. No. 1 in applications for consumer damage relief… According to the Korea Consumer Agency on the 16th, an increase of 79.38% in 3 years, applications for consumer damage relief related to the use of lodging facilities received over the past 3 years have been increasing every year. Accordingly, the status of damage relief, which was only 1,047 cases in 2021, increased to 1,428 cases in 2022 and 1,643 cases in 2023. When looking at the reasons for application, complaints about penalties for contract cancellation were the most common at 78.5%. There have been frequent cases where some lodging facilities unconditionally refuse refunds regardless of the time of contract cancellation request due to the fact that the non-refundable terms and conditions were notified in advance. The number of penalty complaints was 848 in 2021, which was less than 1,000, but increased every year to 1,115 in 2022 and 1,271 in 2023. By platform, Yeogi Eottae received the most applications for damage relief, with a total of 523 cases over the three years. This was followed by Agoda with 505 applications, Yanolja with 502 applications, and Naver with 358 applications. Although there were repeated increases and decreases every year, the number of applications for damage relief by platform increased by 79.38% from 97 cases in 2021 to 174 cases last year. Such consumer complaints appear to be due to difficult cancellation fee policies and difficulties in confirming cancellation fees. Previously, the Korea Consumer Agency has been encouraging accommodation reservation service providers to self-improve when cases of refunds were refused when cancellations were made on the day of contract signing. Accordingly, since 2017, Daily Hotel, Yanolja, Yeogi Eottae, and Hotel Enjoy have decided to provide full refunds for all products, including non-refundable products, if canceled within 10 minutes to 1 hour after signing the contract. However, consumer dissatisfaction is still high. In particular, the inability to find out the cancellation fee at a glance before making a reservation was also pointed out as a problem. Consumer A said, "It was difficult to check the cancellation fee policy without directly clicking the red letters in the terms and conditions. When I used the same lodging company before, I complied with the request to cancel because all the rooms were full, but the problem is that they do not agree to a refund when the consumer is actually losing money." Complaints growing over 'unfair contracts' favorable to lodging platforms Under the 'Act on Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce, etc.', cancellation of subscription regarding the contract is possible within 7 days from the date of receiving a written document regarding the contract details. However, on lodging platforms, there are frequent cases where people, like Mr. A, do not receive a refund despite canceling on the same day. Accordingly, competitor Yanolja recently received a class action lawsuit from consumers. According to the Electronic Commerce Act, products traded can be withdrawn within a week, but some products can only be canceled for free within 10 minutes, so a structure that is advantageous only to the platform was pointed out as a problem. According to Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the Terms and Conditions Act, clauses that are unfairly disadvantageous to the customer, clauses that are difficult to predict, and clauses that limit fundamental rights are presumed to have lost fairness and are treated as invalid. Daeryun Law Firm, which handled the lawsuit, pointed out that the refund policy was unfavorable to customers and thus lost fairness. Here, it is also notified that some of the domestic hotel, resort, pension, guesthouse, camping, and home and villa products can be canceled free of charge only within 10 minutes after reservation and payment, and that the cancellation and refund policy of the relevant accommodation applies thereafter. However, in many cases, it was difficult to intuitively understand these regulations because 3-4 images and room information were located at the bottom of the last scroll. There was also a difference when making a reservation directly through the hotel website rather than through the platform. According to its terms and conditions, Lotte Hotel does not charge a fee if the accommodation contract is canceled in whole or in part due to the customer's circumstances, and if cancellation is made by 6 PM (hotel local time) one day before the scheduled stay date. Cancellation after 6 p.m. was possible by paying only one night’s fee. Consumer confusion is increasing due to different cancellation fee policies depending on the reservation method. One industry insider saidIn a phone call with , he said, "There is a volume of rooms provided by contract for each accommodation platform, and in order to handle this, we will have no choice but to conduct promotions or marketing," and "For this reason, there is a possibility that we will not be able to afford cancellation fees." The 'Consumer Dispute Resolution Standards' also stipulate that even if the contract is canceled due to reasons attributable to the consumer, the down payment must be fully refunded if canceled 10 days before the scheduled use date or on the day of the contract conclusion. However, consumer dispute resolution standards are literally 'recommendations' and therefore have no binding force, making it difficult to actually receive compensation. Part of the cancellation fee is converted into platform revenue... Performance is also growing While consumer complaints are increasing every year, Yeogi Eottae's performance is showing a continuous upward trend. In particular, last year, despite a sharp decline of 22.54% in room sales revenue from KRW 133.1 billion to KRW 103.1 billion compared to the previous year, sales growth was maintained with commission income growing 13.42% from KRW 109.5 billion to KRW 124.2 billion and advertising fee income growing 30.41% from KRW 62.8 billion to KRW 81.9 billion. Commission income refers to income including all fees related to reservations. The cancellation fee is basically paid to the affiliated store, but a portion of it is paid to the affiliated store. The share of such commission income in total revenue amounted to 40.18%. This is an increase of about 4.33% points compared to 35.85% in the previous year. In particular, Yeogi Eottae's fee income increased by 58.47% from 69.1 billion won in 2021 to 109.5 billion won in 2022. Last year, it recorded 124.2 billion won, a 13.42% increase compared to the previous year. During the same period, its share of total sales also increased to 33.7%, 35.8%, and 40.2%. In particular, last year's commission income was only 59.28% of competitor Yanolja's separate sales commission income (KRW 209.5 billion). According to Mobile Index, the average number of monthly users over the past year was 2.2 million for Yeogi Eottae, which was 80,000 fewer than Yanolja (2.28 million). Nevertheless, from 2022, the number of applications for damage relief has been higher than that of Yanolja. As a result of a survey by the Korea Consumer Agency of the status of applications for damage relief by platform, the number of applications for Yeogi Eottae jumped from 97 in 2021 to 252 in 2022. However, last year, there were 174 cases, a 31.0% decrease from the previous year. During the same period, Yanolja's applications for damage relief increased and decreased repeatedly: 133, 198, and 171. However, it is positive that Yeogi Eottae's damage relief processing (settlement rate) increased to 63.9% in 2021, 71.8% in 2022, and 78.2% in 2023. Among these, Yeogi Eottae's sales and operating profit showed even growth, and its operating profit ratio increased to 7.56% in 2021, 10.64% in 2022, and 15.01% in 2023. Profitability has nearly doubled in three years. During the same period, operating profit continued to increase to KRW 15.5 billion, KRW 32.5 billion, and KRW 46.4 billion. The cash reserves are also ample. The current ratio at the end of last year was 130.98%. Among these, Yeogi Eottae's cash and cash equivalents, including short-term financial products, totaled 100.2 billion won, exceeding the combined amount of trade payables and payables of 54.9 billion won. In this regard, an official of Yeogi Eottae said:In a phone call with , he said, "We will continue to strengthen CS to resolve civil complaints." [View full article] - [IB Tomato] How about here, ‘making money’ with cancellation fees… Consumer protection takes a backseat (link)

Customized support for business structure improvement and business diversification, from reviewing various contracts to responding to real estate business legal issues.Daeryun Law Firm (Limited) announced on the 18th that it signed an MOU for legal advice with Kyungil Rental. The MOU signing ceremony held in the conference room of Daeryun General Headquarters on this day was attended by Daeryun CEO Kim Kuk-il, attorney Lee Ki-jun, Kyungil Rental CEO Jeon Jae-sook, and other officials. Kyungil Rental is a company specializing in real estate development and rental business, which purchases and develops land based in Chungcheongnam-do and Gyeongsangnam-do. We are conducting business. This agreement was prepared to prevent legal risks in general regarding real estate transactions. The two organizations plan to cooperate with each other in ▲response to real estate business disputes, ▲review of various contracts, ▲advice for business structure improvement, and ▲seminars and training for joint projects. Kyungil Rental CEO Jeon Jae-sook said, “We are experiencing difficulties in the legal aspect while running a company,” and added, “There are many restrictions in the process of expanding our business, and we desperately need expert help in contract review, etc. This is a great opportunity for Daeryun and “We have established a relationship, and we expect to be able to discover new businesses through continued cooperation in the future,” said Kim Kuk-il, CEO of Daeryun Law Firm, adding, “Daeryun has established a system that allows for video consultations anytime, anywhere, so we can immediately respond to Kyungil Rental’s legal issues, big and small.” He added, “We will spare no effort in providing support so that professional teams in various fields, including real estate, accounting, and labor, can collaborate to provide optimal advice.” “I hope we can cooperate and grow together,” he said. Meanwhile, Daeryun Law Firm operates a corporate legal group and provides customized services to corporate customers by forming a team of experts in each field, such as corporate lawyers, accountants, tax accountants, and labor attorneys, depending on the size of the case, to systematically resolve the case. [View full article] - Daeryun Law Firm signs legal advisory MOU with Kyungil Rental (Click here)

There are increasing cases of people knowing that they have a sexually transmitted disease but hiding it and transmitting it to others. Recently, an active player in a domestic professional soccer league passed a sexually transmitted disease to a woman and was handed over to the prosecution. In this way, if you are aware of the disease and have sexual intercourse and infect your partner, you can be punished by law. In cases of sexually transmitted disease infection, a crime of injury or manslaughter may be applied. In general, it is easy to think of the crime of injury as inflicting physical damage by inflicting violence on another person, but the crime of injury can also be applied when intentionally causing physical or mental pain to another person. Looking at Supreme Court precedents, injury is something that damages the integrity of the victim's body or causes impairment in physiological functions, and does not necessarily have to be accompanied by external injuries. Therefore, if you spread the disease by hiding the fact that you were infected with a sexually transmitted disease, you can be sued by the other party. The key here is 'intention.' If you have sexual intercourse even after knowing that you have a sexually transmitted disease, you will be charged with bodily harm, and if you contracted the infection without knowing it, you will be charged with manslaughter. All of these crimes carry heavy punishment if found guilty. Article 257 of the Criminal Act states that a person who causes physical injury to another person shall be subject to imprisonment for up to 7 years, suspension of qualifications for up to 10 years, or a fine of up to 10 million won. Article 266 of the same Act stipulates that anyone who causes physical injury to a person due to negligence shall be subject to a fine of up to 5 million won, detention, or minor fines. However, in cases of sexually transmitted disease infection, it is difficult to prove it and rarely leads to punishment in practice. This is because it is not difficult to prove that you were infected by someone else. It can only be accepted as evidence if it proves intentionality that the person was aware of the infection and a causal relationship that the person was infected through sexual intercourse with the other person. For example, there was a case where a man hid the fact that he was infected with herpes type 2, causing damage to the person he was in a romantic relationship with. As a result of continuing sexual intercourse without informing the victim that he or she was infected with a virus that is transmitted through sexual contact, the victim suffered permanent damage that requires lifelong care. At this time, the victim, who received assistance from a lawyer, proved the damage through valid evidence such as conversation history and medical records. Additionally, in addition to criminal punishment, civil compensation for damages was also sought and monetary compensation was received. Conversely, there are also cases where the charges are wrongfully filed. There are times when a person is accused by the other person and is framed as a perpetrator, but if you claim to have suffered damage even though you were infected by someone else, you have no choice but to be sued. In this case, it is necessary to get the help of experts from the beginning of the case and quickly clear the charges. [View full article] - Can sexual intercourse while hiding the fact of infection with a sexually transmitted disease constitute a crime? (Shortcut)

Business owner turns a blind eye to compensation request from employee injured while extinguishing fire. Uniform court says, “Business owner is responsible for injuries that occurred while working… Mental shock must also be compensated.” The business owner, who had ignored the request for compensation from an employee who was injured while putting out a fire, has been awarded compensation, including alimony. The court ruled that mental damages caused by the business owner's insincere attitude must also be compensated. The Bucheon branch of the Incheon District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a damages lawsuit filed by employee A against restaurant owner B in August. Person A suffered burns while working at a restaurant run by person B earlier this year. While Mr. B left the fire on to cook food, a fire broke out and he was injured while trying to extinguish it. Mr. A, who suffered third-degree or higher burns, was told by the hospital's medical staff that he would need more than a year of treatment. Afterwards, he requested compensation for damage, including treatment costs, from Mr. B, but Mr. B avoided contact, saying, “I cannot give you a large amount of money.” The court ruled in Mr. A’s favor. The court ruled that Mr. A should pay 28 million won in compensation, saying, "Considering that the fire occurred during working hours and that sufficient safety training and protective equipment were not provided, the store owner's negligence is acknowledged." It also ordered Mr. A and his mother to pay 3 million won each in alimony. The court explained, "The psychological trauma suffered by the plaintiff due to the severe burns is very serious," and "It appears that not only the plaintiff but also the plaintiff's mother suffered extreme pain as not even a proper apology or compensation was provided." Shin Yong-hoon, a lawyer at Daeryun Law Firm (Limited), who represented Mr. He added, “Even though Mr. A, who was a job seeker, suffered serious injuries that required long-term treatment, the store owner showed an irresponsible attitude, which added to the mental stress of Mr. A’s family.” He added, “It appears that the court took these circumstances into consideration and even ordered the payment of alimony.” [View full article] - Ignoring calls from an employee who was injured at work... The story of having to pay alimony (link)

The Ministry of Labor and the Ministry of Employment and Labor judged that it is difficult to regard celebrities as employees in the past. Celebrity exclusive contracts are judged to be delegation contracts under civil law, so there must be 'subordination' and 'compulsion' to be recognized as workers. Hani, a member of the girl group New Jeans, appeared at the National Assembly Audit Hall on the 15th to testify about the issue of bullying in the workplace, saying that she was ostracized within the hive of an entertainment agency. On this day, Hani said that this was not the first time something like this had happened, and said in tears that this would not have happened if they respected each other as human beings. It was leaked. New Jeans fans reported Adore and Hive officials to the police, and it is known that about 100 complaints were also filed with the Ministry of Employment and Labor. Now the ball has passed to the Ministry of Labor. The issue is whether the employee status of New Jeans members who signed individual contracts with the agency is recognized. Netizens responded by saying, “Are freelancers and self-employed workers employees? Make all non-employed self-employed employees employees,” “Are idols employees? They belong to an agency, but they don’t receive a set salary,” “Where are the workers who earn several billion won?”, “Shouldn’t all office workers in the country with a monthly salary of less than 300 be subject to a national inspection?”, “Are idols wage earners? Business income earners?” and that celebrities with different salary levels are not included as workers. On the other hand, there were also reactions such as “Workers outside of the workforce are also people. We need to protect them,” “We are all human beings, so it’s hard to argue whether they are workers or not,” “It is true that whether or not they are workers is based on how much money they make, and the purpose of this national inspection is to guarantee the human rights of special workers, including celebrities,” and “There must have been a lot of unfairness that many young trainees and idols were unable to speak about in their blind spots.” Looking at past government judgments, It was difficult to classify celebrities who sign exclusive contracts as workers under the Labor Standards Act. A ‘worker’ under the Labor Standards Act is defined as “a person who is subordinate to an employer and provides labor for wages.” Most celebrities work under an exclusive contract with an agency, and the agency manages the celebrity’s activities and shares profits. However, since the agency is entrusted with the celebrity's work and performs it faithfully, such a contract is generally judged to be a delegation contract or contract based on a delegation contract under civil law and is not considered an employment contract. What conditions must a celebrity meet in order to be recognized as an employee? Attorney Choi Hyun-deok of the Daeryun Law Firm explained, “They must be in an employment relationship where they are subordinate to their agency and receive unilateral instructions, commands, and supervision.” He continued, “If a celebrity does not have independent decision-making authority in their activities and is required to follow the agency’s unilateral instructions (defined tasks), and if they receive specific and direct command and supervision in the course of their work, several conditions must be met.” However, he explained that most of the exclusive contracts of celebrities are atypical contracts that are based on delegation contracts and are a mixture of employment contracts and subcontracts, so it would be difficult for celebrities to be recognized as pure workers who are completely subordinate to the management company. As a result, some point out that there is a need to improve the labor rights of idols, who are in a blind spot. Workplace Gapjil 119 said that since idols are young and have a subordinate relationship with their agency, they are even more considered workers under the Labor Standards Act. Lawyer Choi also said that there is still a lack of a legal system that can clarify the nature of celebrity exclusive contracts, and suggested that there should be legislation that takes into account the special characteristics of celebrities. How are celebrities classified overseas? In the US and UK, celebrities are generally not considered workers. In the United States, people are classified as ‘independent contractors’ and must pay their own income and social security taxes, and often do not receive welfare benefits provided by their employers. In the UK, celebrities are mainly classified as ‘self-employed’. They contract to participate in plays, broadcasts, films, etc., but perform the work freely rather than receiving direct instructions from their employer. [View full article] - Are idols also ‘workers’? Questions left by Hani’s testimony [All That Check] (Shortcut)

While the Ministry of Justice is pushing for revisions to the Commercial Act and the Capital Markets Act that include 'protection of shareholders' interests,' some are pushing ahead with the amendments to the Commercial Act and the Capital Markets Act without listening to the opinions of businessmen and others. There is also criticism that it is a "political amendment." There is confusion between related ministries or lack of preparation. Initially, whenever the Commercial Act is revised, the Ministry of Justice creates a revision committee made up of experts and collects various opinions, but in this revision, unusually, there is no movement to form a committee. They also seem to be rushing to announce the amendment without even completing the hearing of opinions from stakeholders, including businessmen. According to the legal community on the 15th, the Ministry of Justice has not established a commercial law revision committee while promoting a commercial law revision aimed at protecting shareholders' interests. Although it is not necessary to create a committee to revise the Commercial Act, there is a precedent of always creating a committee and collecting various opinions from experts when making large or small revisions. A legal expert who has served as a member of the revision committee several times interpreted, “Creating an amendment without a committee is proof that the amendment is being rushed and is a somewhat political amendment.” An official from the Ministry of Justice said, “Even without a committee, we are listening to the opinions of officials in various ways.” It is known that the Ministry of Justice is considering adding the clause 2 of Article 382-3 of the Commercial Act, which states that ‘directors must strive to protect the legitimate interests of shareholders while performing their duties’ in this amendment. In addition, it is being considered to include in the amendments the autonomy of merger ratios among listed affiliates and the obligation to disclose corporate value evaluation results in the event of a merger. On this day, the Ministry of Justice announced, “Although we are pursuing revisions to the Commercial Act and the Capital Markets Act, nothing has yet been decided on the content and timing of announcement.” It is known that there is some confusion within the Ministry of Justice regarding such amendments. This is not only because a committee composed of external experts has not been formed, but also because the opinions of actual stakeholders, such as businessmen, have only just begun to be heard. There are many different opinions from outside. A professor at a law school said, “There is no social discussion about the extent of legitimate interests among the amendments that strive to protect (shareholders’) legitimate interests.” He added, “For example, if you push for revision of the Commercial Act without agreement on whether it is a legitimate interest if all the procedural matters are met, there is bound to be controversy.” Bang In-tae, an attorney at Daeryun Law Firm, also said, “As minority shareholders can file lawsuits directly against management, the shareholder representative lawsuit system under Article 403 of the Commercial Act has also been introduced.” He said, “This increased burden on management not only increases corporate costs, but also carries the risk of internal information related to the company’s core competitiveness being disclosed to the outside world.” [View full article] - Ministry of Justice reviews provisions on ‘directors’ efforts to protect shareholders’… Controversy over passing the revision committee (link)

In a rental lawsuit, the burden of proving the rental lies with the plaintiff. Judge Dong-Hyeon Yoon of the Western Branch of the Busan District Court said, “There is no objective basis to prove the rental.”A ruling was made to dismiss the plaintiffs' loan claim, judging that the money transferred by the deceased husband to his brother-in-law's account during his lifetime was a 'gift'. It was confirmed on the 14th that Judge Dong-Hyun Yoon of the 4th Civil Division, Western Branch of the Busan District Court ruled against the plaintiff on the 5th of last month in a lawsuit claiming the return of the loan that the wife and children of the deceased, Mr. Sent 60 million won. According to Mr. B, it was a way of repaying his sister and Mr. B for taking good care of him while he was living isolated from his family for a long time. However, a few years later, when Mr. A suddenly passed away, the conflict over ‘60 million won’ began in earnest. Mr. A's wife and children, who belatedly learned of the whereabouts of the large sum of money, filed a lawsuit against Mr. B for the loan. They argued at the trial that the 60 million won that Mr. B and his wife received from Mr. A was a 'loan'. At that time, Mr. B and his wife were in a situation where they had to urgently purchase an apartment, but due to lack of funds, they borrowed money from their family member, Mr. A. In response, Mr. B countered, saying, “There was no reason to borrow money because the funds for the purchase of the apartment were already sufficient.” Judge Dong-Hyun Yoon of the Western Branch of the Busan District Court, who heard the case, said, “There is insufficient basis to admit that 60 million won is a loan. The plaintiffs did not know the details of the transfer, and based the lawsuit based on various circumstances. Judge Dong-Hyun Yoon also ruled that “the defendant’s claims are persuasive, as when combining various evidence, it appears that the deceased, who transferred the money around 2020, depended for his living on his younger brother and his wife, not on his own family,” and dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims. Attorney Kim Hae-rin of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented the defendant B, who won the case in this trial, said, “In the rental lawsuit, if the defendant is different from the plaintiff, “If the fact of the rental itself is not acknowledged, the burden of proof as to whether it was a rental lies with the plaintiff,” he said. Attorney Kim Hae-rin continued, “The plaintiffs had little interaction with Mr. A for a long time, so they were not even aware of the remittance.” He added, “It appears that the legal effect was not recognized because they claimed the loan without any related materials such as a money consumption loan agreement.” [Read full article] - Court says, “60 million won sent to my brother-in-law... was a ‘gift’ as the loan could not be proven” (Shortcut)

The court ruled that it was an unfair decision not to allow the establishment of an avoidance facility due to opposition from residents. According to the legal community on the 11th, the 1st administrative division of Cheongju District Court recently ruled on August 22 that Chungju City will cancel the notice of disallowance of waste treatment business that Chungju City gave to Mr. A, a waste treatment plant operator. Mr. A submitted a waste treatment business plan to Chungju City in January 2023 and received a conditional notification of suitability. It was suggested that 'business site management, including maintenance of prevention facilities, will be thoroughly implemented to prevent odors from occurring.' Afterwards, Mr. A prepared facilities and equipment according to the contents of the business plan and submitted an application for a permit to the city, but the permit was rejected. The reason was that opposition complaints were received from residents who raised the odor problem. Mr. A then filed an administrative lawsuit, and the court ruled in favor of Mr. A, saying, "The opposition complaints from nearby residents cannot be regarded as a requirement for a waste disposal business license." He agreed. He then explained, “We took into account the fact that odor prevention facilities were scheduled to be installed, the odor measurement values when the facility was in operation were below the emission standards, and there was no objective evidence to prove that serious odors were likely to occur.” He also said, “After the plaintiff received notification of suitability for the business plan, he invested a lot of time, money, and effort to install the facilities, etc.” and added, “Due to the disposition, all of the above efforts were in vain and he suffered a huge disadvantage.” He added. Attorney Daeryun Lee Dong-eun, a law firm representing Mr. A, emphasized, "According to the Waste Management Act, related facilities must not be rejected or notified as inappropriate for reasons such as simple opposition to installation." He added, "Dispositions in such cases should be viewed as illegal as an abuse of discretion or a measure that deviates from the scope." He added, "Waste treatment facilities are facilities that are absolutely necessary for us, but at the same time, they are facilities that are not preferred," and "It is difficult to be completely free from the influence of the local community. “Administrative offices must make decisions based on objective and specific data,” he pointed out. [Read the full article] - “Residents oppose” the refusal to allow the establishment of facilities avoided. Law calls it “an unfair decision” (Shortcut)

The director of an academy accused of extorting billions of won from parents was sentenced to prison. On August 23, the Criminal Division 1 of the Eastern Branch of the Busan District Court (Chief Judge Lee Dong-gi) sentenced Mr. He asked for a loan. At first, Mr. A immediately repaid the borrowed amount and acted as if he was keeping his promise, but a few hours later, he deceived Mr. B by asking for a re-deposit due to an account error. Mr. A's requests for money continued thereafter. Complaining of difficult circumstances such as betrayal by a business partner, Mr. A persuaded Mr. B that he would repay the loan by opening a high-limit negative bank account. In this way, the total amount paid by Mr. B to Mr. A over 20 days amounts to 2.49 billion won. The court said, “The defendant deceived his parents for the purpose of using it for internet gambling, etc.,” and “Considering this, the nature of the crime is bad, and the defendant’s history of fraud and the fact that he has not been forgiven by the victim. “Considering this, there is a high possibility of criticism.” The fact that Mr. A had repaid about 68% of the borrowed money was taken into account as a favorable circumstance, but Mr. A was sentenced to prison. Attorney Kim Jin-won of Daeryun Law Firm (Limited), who acted as the victim’s legal representative, said, “There are frequent cases of borrowing money under the pretense of pretending to repay even when there is no ability to repay,” and added, “This case is not a simple financial issue. “It is a serious crime of extorting money,” he said. He added, “Postponing the promised repayment date is also beneficial to property, so in this case, the crime of fraud is also established.” [View full article] - Academy director who deceived parents and extorted billions of won... Sentenced to 3 years and 6 months in prison (link)