Press Coverage

There are increasing cases of airport arrival halls turning into investigation scenes in an instant upon returning from a pleasant trip. According to statistics from the Korea Customs Service, the detection of drug smuggling by travelers in the first quarter of this year increased by 128% compared to the same period last year. Now, drug smuggling is not just a problem for certain criminal organizations, but has become a realistic threat where even ordinary travelers can be exposed to crime without even realizing it. The tragic story of good citizens being accused of being ‘drug smugglers’ usually starts with an extremely routine request. A typical example is when an acquaintance you have built a close relationship with overseas asks you to “carry just one bag for me because I have too much luggage,” or asks you to deliver a specific item in exchange for financial support for airfare and lodging through SNS. On the outside, it may seem like a simple request or errand, but the moment drugs are discovered at the arrival hall, you can immediately become an accomplice to drug smuggling, a serious crime. The biggest characteristic of cases like this is the urgency of the investigation process. Starting with X-ray reading immediately after entry, detailed baggage inspection, mobile phone digital forensics, and account tracking are carried out simultaneously. Immediately after detection, most people complain of injustice, saying, “I had no idea that the contents were drugs,” but unfortunately, in legal terms, it is very unlikely that such a claim can serve as grounds for acquittal. Our courts broadly recognize ‘intention to fail to carry out’ even if there was no definite knowledge or if the person took the risk of transport despite being able to foresee the risk given the circumstances. In particular, if payment was received even though the source of the goods is unclear, or if the contents were not confirmed even though the delivery method was secret and abnormal, the court considers this as evidence of ‘intention to tolerate the possibility of a crime.’ What is even more dangerous is lying or retracting statements in the early stages of the investigation out of embarrassment. This is seen by investigative agencies as an attempt to conceal a crime, and may become a decisive reason for requesting an arrest warrant. Therefore, it is important to respond logically by quickly organizing objective data such as the specific circumstances of receiving the goods, messenger conversation history, and travel itinerary, rather than emotional complaints. The consistent view of investigative agencies and courts is that drug smuggling is not simply an individual's deviance, but is the actual starting point of all drug crimes that shake the foundation of our community. In fact, according to Article 58 of the Narcotics Control Act, anyone who exports or imports drugs can be sentenced to life imprisonment or more than five years in prison. This means that regardless of whether it is a first offense, the possibility of being sentenced to prison is overwhelmingly high, and it is impossible to expect leniency based on the qualifier of ‘simple participant.’ Park Jeong-gu, a lawyer at the Daeryun Law Firm, said, “In the end, a request to transport another person’s goods of unknown origin under the pretense of a light favor during the entry process or a request to deliver goods in exchange for a large sum beyond common sense is highly likely to pose a serious legal risk in itself.” “If you are caught up in an unexpected incident, securing your right to defense through a legal review by an expert with experience in drug cases before the first statement is recorded is the most realistic response to maintaining a peaceful daily life.”[View full article] Traveler drug smuggling, punishable even if you “don’t know”… Criminal risk starts at the airport (link)

Daeryun Law Firm joined hands with GS Cable, a mid-sized manufacturer in the Gyeongnam region, to establish a strategic partnership to revitalize the local economy and support businesses. On the 24th, Daeryun announced that it had signed a business agreement (MOU) with GS Cable with the aim of contributing to the local community and expanding cooperation. At the signing ceremony held at the Daeryun Jinju branch office on the 21st, key officials from both sides, including CEOs Kim Kuk-il, Go Byeong-jun, and Jeong Chan-woo of Daeryun and GS Cable & System CEO Kang Shin-il, attended and discussed cooperation plans. GS Cable & System, which opened in 2007, has a stable business based in Jinju and Sancheong. It is a representative local company that is recording sales. Both sides plan to use Daeryun's legal expertise to eliminate management uncertainties faced by local companies and help them expand their presence in overseas markets. Key cooperation tasks include establishing a legal consulting and compliance system specialized for small and medium-sized companies, planning programs related to local community coexistence and ESG management, and providing legal guidance for entering overseas markets and expanding exports. In addition, the two organizations plan to increase synergy by regularly exchanging industry trends and legal information. Kang Shin-il, CEO of GS Cable & System, expressed his expectations, saying, "This cooperation will be a stepping stone for local companies with technological capabilities to expand into the global market without legal restrictions." Kim Kuk-il, CEO of Daeryun, also emphasized, "We will realize the social value of legal services by supporting sound local partners," and "We will fulfill the role of a law firm as a facilitator to help revitalize exports." Daeryun provides regionally customized legal solutions based on its nationwide network and contributes to revitalizing the local economy through connections with local governments and companies.[View full article] Daeryun Law Firm and GS Cable & System sign a business agreement to strengthen the global competitiveness of local small but strong companies (Click here)

Initial response is mixed due to lack of government guidance... Only CUs with different structures are burdened, and after the implementation of the Yellow Bag Act, the conflict between BGF Retail and the Korea Freight Forwarders Association emerged as a major issue in the distribution industry. The industry is paying attention to the fact that differences in each company's response method in the early stages of implementation, rather than the law itself, contributed to the size and aspect of the conflict. Unlike the overall delivery industry's attempt to manage the situation through procedural responses, some analyzes say that BGF Retail's business structure and initial response choices ultimately increased the management burden. According to the distribution industry and labor circles on the 24th, BGF Logis, a logistics subsidiary of BGF Retail, began working-level negotiations with Korea Freight Workers' Union on the 22nd. It has been 43 days since the implementation of the Yellow Bag Act. This is in contrast to the fact that many of the major companies in the industry that received requests for negotiation began response procedures within the first 10 days or so of the law's enforcement. Coupang Logistics Service (CLS) announced its request for negotiation on March 10, the day the law went into effect. CJ Logistics posted factual notices on the 17th, Lotte Global Logistics and Rosen Express on the 18th, and Hanjin Express on the 19th. The actions of these companies are interpreted as a strategic choice to manage conflicts within the system, independent of legal judgment. However, there are differing interpretations among practitioners regarding the legal meaning of the factual announcement. Ryu Soon-geon, a labor attorney representing Leein Labor Law Firm, explained, "From the employer's perspective, posting a factual notice can serve as evidence that the union has been recognized as a bargaining target. As of now, there are no specific guidelines from the government, so companies will have no choice but to be cautious about whether or not to post a factual notice." Next, the union advised, “If the primary contractor does not respond to the request for negotiation, one option is to file an appeal with the Labor Relations Commission and receive a decision.” Bang In-tae, an attorney at Daeryun Law Firm, said, “The public notice of the request for negotiation itself is nothing more than the implementation of statutory procedures, so it is difficult to view it as a direct recognition of user status.” He added, “In the end, the key is how dependent the worker is on the side claiming to be the employer and provides labor. If the contract structure focuses on working conditions and processes rather than outcomes, there is a high possibility of negotiation obligations regardless of the government’s interpretation, so it is necessary to check the contract in advance.” It is also pointed out that policy uncertainty affected the company’s judgment. Immediately after the enforcement of the law, Minister of Employment and Labor Kim Young-hoon drew a line saying that this cargo solidarity issue was not subject to application, but after the fatal accident occurred, he readjusted his existing position, citing the absence of a communication channel. Minister Kim said, “The main contractor that must engage in negotiations with cargo drivers is BGF Retail, the CU operator,” and also interpreted the cargo union that did not report the establishment of a union, saying, “Even if they are self-employed in form, if they are subordinated in substance, they can be considered workers.” The Central Labor Relations Commission announced that it would prepare guidelines for judging usability at the time of enforcement of the law, but no substantive standards have been presented to date. In the industry, it is assessed that many companies do not fully understand the yellow envelope law and are having difficulty coming up with a response strategy in the absence of clear guidelines. An industry official said, “A significant number of companies lack understanding of the yellow envelope law,” and “They are unable to come up with a clear response plan and are only waiting for government guidance and are closely watching the market situation.” Citing a law professor, academics also point out that “there are opinions that the implementation of the revised law is premature,” and that “the enforcement of the law was rushed ahead at a stage when specific guidelines or judgment standards were not yet mature, causing confusion in the field.” BGF Retail said. Based on the government's initial interpretation of the law, the government chose to wait for the National Labor Relations Commission's decision, but as the conflict continued, the management burden increased. Some see this issue as an example of increased costs due to the delay in choosing the timing of negotiations, rather than a negotiation that was impossible from the beginning, given that negotiations were eventually concluded. As logistics work has been vertically integrated through BGF Logis, this incident is expected to serve as an opportunity to expand the discussion surrounding the actual scope of influence and responsibility of the main contractor to the distribution industry as a whole.[View full article] 'Yellow envelope law for one month' Quiet delivery company... The reason why conflict only increased in CU (Shortcut)

It has been about a month since the revised Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter referred to as the Union Act), also known as the 'Yellow Envelope Act', went into effect. On the surface, the system appears to be settling down, with about 140,000 subcontracted workers requesting negotiations, but the temperature felt by the main contracting companies on site is quite different. In particular, in line with the expansion of user rights under Article 2 of the revised Trade Union Act, the results of the Labor Relations Commission's 'separation of bargaining units' judgment on the subcontractor's union's request for direct bargaining are mixed for each case, and the company's management risk is falling into unpredictable judicial uncertainty. When faced with the subcontractor's union's request for collective bargaining, the main contractor must go through the process of unifying the bargaining channel to decide 'with whom and how to negotiate', and the key issue in this process is the union law. It is a ‘separate bargaining unit’ system stipulated in Article 29-3. Looking at the recent trend of rulings by the Labor Relations Commission, separation of bargaining units is exceptionally cited in cases where significant differences in working conditions such as wage system or working environment between primary and subcontracted workers are proven or when job independence is clear. On the other hand, in cases where there has been a practice of integrating primary and subcontracting in one workplace for negotiation in the past or where the characteristics of the subcontracting union are judged to be reasonable even if they are merged into the existing bargaining unit, the application for separation is strictly dismissed, depending on the specific facts. Legal standards are being applied. The fact that the Labor Relations Commission's judgment results are so mixed suggests that if companies wait and see the situation without a thorough legal review in advance, they may take on fatal risks in the future. If the separation of bargaining units is adopted contrary to the company's intention, enormous administrative costs and confusion in management will occur as the company must individually set up a negotiation table with multiple subcontracting unions. Conversely, if the separation is rejected and bundled into a single large window, the ripple effect of industrial action such as solidarity strikes by subcontractor unions will grow uncontrollably. In other words, regardless of the direction of the decision, the number of cases that companies face all involve significant labor risks. Therefore, prime contract companies should avoid a wait-and-see attitude, relying on the government's optimism shown in the indicators. A company's response strategy should not be passively guided by the Labor Relations Commission's decision, but should focus on building a 'preemptive and objective logic of explanation' to set up a negotiation structure that is advantageous to the company. To this end, the legal and human resources departments must go beyond document review and closely inspect and redesign the situation on site. First, measures to separate work spaces, movement lines, and rest facility use times can be considered as factors that can show differences in working conditions. In addition, special attention must be paid to minimizing the circumstances of direct orders from the primary office that can easily become controversial. It is advisable to avoid accidental on-site work instructions through mobile messengers or text messages, and to prepare communication guidelines for primary and subcontractors and guide them to members. Furthermore, it is a good idea to examine the company's response logic in advance by assuming a hypothetical negotiation request situation with an external expert. In this way, establishing practical guidelines and supplementing expected blind spots in advance is the most realistic alternative to substantially reducing the burden on companies under the current legal system. Since legal judgments may vary depending on the specific circumstances of each individual business, it is appropriate to obtain advice from a legal expert.[View full article] Conflicting decisions on ‘separation of bargaining units’… What is the primary company’s response strategy? (Shortcut)

A house teacher who was accused of child abuse for raising her voice and admonishing students during the dormitory guidance process was acquitted. According to the legal community on the 23rd, the Cheongju District Prosecutors' Office decided not to indict A, a woman in her 50s who was sent on charges of violating the Special Act on the Punishment of Child Abuse Crimes on the 10th of last month. Ms. A worked at a middle school dormitory in North Chungcheong Province last year and asked students, "Why don't you clean it?" He was suspected of emotional abuse by making remarks such as "Don't you think" and "Think about it before you live". He was also accused of putting psychological pressure on students who returned home late at night, such as blocking their entrance and not letting them sleep. Mr. A completely denied the allegations. At that time, there were repeated situations where students did not follow the rules of life, such as returning late at night, so we provided guidance to correct this, and argued that there was no intention of abuse at all, as their voices were temporarily raised in a situation where their condition was not good at the time. The prosecution found that Mr. A's charges were not recognized. The prosecution judged that emotional abuse under the Child Welfare Act refers to an act that reaches the level of harming a child's mental health or normal development, and that it is difficult to admit it simply because of a simple admonition or increased vocalization. In addition, the illegality of the act explained that the relationship between the actor and the child, the situation at the time of the act, repetition, and changes in the victim's condition, etc., said. "Child abuse and discipline for educational purposes must be distinguished," said lawyer Nam Sang-gwan of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A. “This case was a one-time act within the scope of routine discipline, and we were able to receive an acquittal by focusing on the fact that violence or repetition was not recognized,” he explained. Reporter Kwon Byeong-seok (bsk730@fnnews.com)[View full article] “He just gave me a loud admonition in the dormitory.” The housemaster who was reported for child abuse was cleared of charges (link)

[Ulsan District Court] The attending physician acknowledged negligence in diagnosis. Although the patient with a duodenal ulcer had symptoms that suggested the possibility of perforation, the hospital failed to conduct additional tests and provide treatment, leading to the death of the patient. Ulsan District Court Judge Woo Jung-min acknowledged 60% of the defendants' responsibility in the lawsuit (2024 Gadan 105323) filed by the husband and two children of Patient A (58 years old at the time) in Chungju City against Hospital B in Chungju and the head of internal medicine at Hospital B, who was the attending physician, demanding compensation for damages on April 10, saying, "The attending physician should stand in solidarity with Hospital B and pay a total of 156 million won to the plaintiffs." ruled. Hospital B was declared bankrupt in September 2024, and the plaintiffs' claims for damages against Hospital B were confirmed as bankruptcy claims. On September 18, 2023, A visited the internal medicine department of Hospital B with symptoms such as abdominal pain and vomiting, was diagnosed with gastroenteritis and colitis, and was hospitalized for treatment. However, his symptoms worsened and he was transferred to another hospital on September 26, where he was diagnosed with acute peritonitis due to a perforated duodenal ulcer and underwent surgery, but ultimately died. Judge Woo acknowledged the attending physician's diagnostic negligence. Judge Woo said, "Although perforation was not confirmed in the endoscopy performed by the attending physician on September 25, 2023, if a duodenal ulcer accompanied by severe bleeding was observed and abdominal pain continued to be complained afterward, there is room for suspicion of duodenal ulcer perforation. Even if there was no perforation, a nasogastric tube should have been inserted to check for bleeding or a computed tomography scan to check for active bleeding and necessary treatment should have been considered. However, the attending physician should have checked the presence of active bleeding the next day. He pointed out that "only symptomatic treatment such as administration of antipyretics and dopamine was administered until 18:00," and that "although the attending physician was prescribing peptic ulcer treatment to A after the endoscopy, symptoms such as decreased blood pressure, increased pulse, and oliguria were observed in A around 14:40 on September 26, 2023, and anuria was confirmed at around 15:00 after insertion of an indwelling urinary catheter, multiple organ failure. “Although septic shock was suspected and it was very urgent and important to determine the cause, the medical records submitted by the defendant hospital do not confirm the tests or diagnosis performed by the attending physician to determine the cause.” Judge Woo also pointed out, "A's condition deteriorated rapidly between September 25 and 26, 2023, and the expert judge judged that the prognosis could have been different if the attending physician had made an appropriate diagnosis and treatment before A fell into multiple organ failure and septic shock, or if A had been immediately transferred for treatment if treatment at the defendant hospital was judged to be impossible," and "A's prognosis could have been different after the attending physician performed an endoscopy." “It can be acknowledged that A failed to provide appropriate treatment to A due to negligence in diagnosing the condition, leading to A’s death from peritonitis and multiple organ failure due to perforation of the duodenum.” Judge Woo stated, however, that the defendant's medical staff failed to diagnose duodenal perforation, peritonitis, and multiple organ failure in a timely manner, and as a result, A died without receiving proper treatment. However, the defendant's medical staff also performed abdominal radiography and endoscopy in response to A's complaints of abdominal pain, and the results showed no findings suspicious for perforation. Basic treatment according to A's symptoms was continued, and the causes of abdominal pain were diverse, so perforation or peritonitis was diagnosed when a duodenal ulcer was diagnosed. Considering that there may have been some difficulties, the defendants' liability was limited to 60%. Daeryun Law Firm represented the plaintiffs. For the full text of the ruling, please refer to the Ulsan District Court website. Legal Times Reporter Kim Deok-seong (dsconf@legaltimes.co.kr)[View full article] [Medical] “Patient dies due to failure to take appropriate measures despite symptoms of suspected duodenal perforation… 60% of hospital responsibility” (link)

In recent times in our society, inheritance is no longer a problem only for some wealthy individuals. Issues such as property disputes between children, the whereabouts of real estate donated during one's lifetime, and whether or not children's contributions to their parents should be recognized are becoming more and more diverse, and related lawsuits are also increasing explosively. In fact, according to the Supreme Court Judicial Yearbook, lawsuits requesting the return of oil have more than tripled in 10 years, from 590 cases in 2012 to 1,872 cases in 2022. The problem is that as disputes become more routine and complicated, many people are missing the most fundamental key to determining victory or defeat. No matter how intense the emotions or how clear the evidence is, a lawsuit cannot even begin if it does not exceed the ‘time’ threshold set by law. Inheritance disputes often start with emotional conflict, but the legal end is ultimately reached within the ‘legal golden time’ when rights can be exercised. In lawsuits over reserve, the court strictly examines ‘when the right was exercised’ as well as the legitimacy of the right. Article 1117 of the Civil Code stipulates that the right to claim return of reserved portion must be exercised within one year from the date of commencement of inheritance and the date of knowledge of the gift or bequest that must be returned. This regulation is not a simple period limit, but is the primary gateway to determining whether the exercise of rights is legal. In many cases, the battle over the ‘point of recognition’ rather than the amount of contribution becomes the key issue. In particular, the standard of ‘not knowing’ is subjective, so objective proof is very difficult. There are many cases where property transfers between families are not documented, and interpretations differ depending on each person's memory only after a dispute occurs. In the end, the court determines whether or not it is recognized by combining various circumstances rather than determining a specific point in time. Kwak Nae-won, an inheritance lawyer at Daeryun Law Firm, explained, "In this process, it is 'evidence' that determines whether or not you will actually win the case. Even if there is no formal data such as a contract or notarial deed, everyday records such as text messages, account flow, role division among family members, and property management methods serve as a decisive basis for proving the time of recognition. Rather than the fragmentary power of individual data, the core competency of a lawyer is to create a 'logical flow' formed by connecting these circumstances." He continued, "A recent case is a representative example. When the decedent passed away after gifting real estate to a specific child while alive and leaving an intention to bequeath it, other heirs filed a lawsuit claiming infringement of the reserve. The issue was when the plaintiffs knew about the gift." Attorney Kwak Nae-won said, "By closely analyzing past text messages and how they managed their assets during their lifetime, we proved that the plaintiffs had already been aware of the gift for a long time. The content of past conversations, which implied that they had already received everything, served as a decisive clue to support the fact of knowledge. The court determined that the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit after the statute of limitations had expired and dismissed all claims." He went on to say, "The above case shows that a suit for reserve is not simply a matter of contesting whether or not there is more or less property. Regardless of whether the right exists, 'whether it was exercised on time' is a prerequisite for victory. Therefore, in a dispute for reserve, early diagnosis is more important than responding after the fact. The party claiming the right must quickly check the property transfer details immediately after the start of inheritance and calculate the statute of limitations. Conversely, the defending party needs to preemptively secure materials to prove that the other party was already aware of the gift." reported. Attorney Kwak Nae-won said, "Conversations and records between family members tend to disappear as time passes. If a dispute is expected, related data must be systematically organized. The essence of a lawsuit over retained assets is ultimately 'time and proof.' The approach of logically combining accurate facts and evidence within a short period of one year determines actual victory or defeat."[View full article] In a lawsuit over oil reserves, the one-year statute of limitations and evidence determine the outcome (Shortcut)

With the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) recently launching the online Customs Refund Portal (CAPE) and the refund process worth about KRW 244 trillion (USD 166 billion) in full swing, a seminar will be held to diagnose changes in the global trade environment and strengthen the practical response capabilities of foreign companies. Daeryun Law Firm, together with the Korea Foreign Companies Association (KOFA), will hold a conference room at the Daeryun main office in Park One, Yeouido, Seoul at 3 p.m. on the 7th of next month. It was announced on the 22nd that it would hold a ‘US tariff refund and trade risk response seminar for foreign companies’. Any foreign company executives or managers from related departments such as HR, legal affairs, finance, purchasing, SCM, and logistics can attend the seminar. Applications for attendance and detailed curriculum can be found on the Daeryun Law Firm website. This seminar goes beyond providing guidance on the refund application process and is designed to help build preemptive governance to respond to complex legal and contractual issues that may arise after refunds and trade pressure from the United States. At the seminar, Daeryun experts with expertise in customs and global corporate law will appear as presenters. The seminar will be held in a total of two sessions, and in the first part, customs expert Jae-ho Myung will present on the topic of ‘U.S. IEEPA tariff refund system and latest practical trends.’ Commissioner Myeong is an expert who has overseen trade review and FTA consulting at major companies such as Hyundai Express and Korea Origin Information Service. It presents strategies to respond to administrative difficulties and customs screening that companies may face during the refund process. In Part 2, foreign attorney Dong-Hoo Son (USA) will present on the topic ‘Issues after refund: Official importer structure, refund attribution, and subsequent trade risks.’ Attorney Son is an investment and corporate law expert who has successfully led a number of cross-border projects, including consulting on global pharmaceutical companies' entry into the U.S. market. He explains that the opening of CBP's portal is a practical follow-up to the U.S. Federal Court's unconstitutional ruling in February, and presents scenarios that foreign companies may experience. Specifically, we plan to deal in depth with practical sensitive issues such as the step-by-step application scope of the CAPE refund system, response to refund settlement disputes between headquarters and corporations, and follow-up response directions for CAPE exclusion cases. Daeryun Kim Kuk-il, CEO of CBP, said, “With the operation of CBP’s portal, a practical path has been opened for importers who paid the so-called Trump tariffs to receive refunds.” “The goal is to ensure logical consistency,” he emphasized. Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] Seoul Newspaper - Daeryun·KOFA to hold ‘US Tariff Refund and Trade Risk Response Seminar’ on the 7th of next month (Go here) Edaily - Daeryun to hold ‘US Tariff Refund and Trade Risk Seminar’ with KOFA on the 7th of next month (Go here) Beyond Post - Daeryun and KOFA hold ‘US Tariff Refund and Trade Risk Response Seminar’ (Go here)

Lawyer Beomsu Yoon, Daeryun Law Firm In the past, many local governments continued the practice of outsourcing all work to brokers during the process of introducing foreign seasonal workers due to language barriers, complicated administrative procedures, and lack of manpower. This is why the Ministry of Justice began a large-scale inspection of businesses introducing seasonal workers for about three months starting this month. This inspection is targeting 27 cities and counties across the country that have received more than 100 seasonal workers or have caused social controversy in the past due to issues related to seasonal workers. If a violation is discovered or a request for correction such as accommodation improvement is not complied with, special attention is needed from each local government as they may be excluded from future seasonal worker assignments. In particular, they must face the fact that the weight of legal responsibility is different from before. Article 94, Paragraph 11-2 of the revised Immigration Control Act, which came into effect on January 23, strictly prohibits the act of receiving money or valuables by intervening in the selection, placement, or recruitment of seasonal workers, and stipulates that violations will result in imprisonment of up to 3 years or a fine of up to 30 million won. This means that the secret link between 'local government-private broker-farm owner', which was tolerated in the past for administrative convenience, is now treated as a serious crime in which local government officials and farm owners can be implicated as accomplices. So how should local governments defend against such judicial risks and the possibility of administrative sanctions? The key is the directization of administration and the establishment of a specific ‘compliance (compliance) system’. Like the Geochang-gun model in South Gyeongsang Province, the county office should directly carry out visa acquisition and administrative procedures that previously depended on brokers, and directly select workers through local interviews, thereby completely blocking any room for private intervention. In addition, a specific manual is needed to prevent and manage human trafficking crimes, such as passport confiscation or wage theft, at the local government level. When concluding a labor contract between a farm and a worker, the local government must clearly announce the prohibition on confiscation of ID cards and bank accounts and require a pledge to this effect. Furthermore, dedicated personnel should be deployed within local governments to regularly cross-verify farmers' wage payment details and living conditions, including accommodations, in accordance with the Ministry of Justice's inspection standards, and establish communication channels to respond immediately when problems arise. Through this, blocking illegal elements early and proving that the management and supervision system that complies with legal standards is functioning properly will be a key strategy to safely protect seasonal worker quotas for local agricultural and fisheries. ● Contributions by external writers may differ from the editorial direction of this paper. Gyeonggi Ilbo webmaster@kyeonggi.com[View full article] [Contribution] Knife drawn on ‘labor exploitation of seasonal workers’… Local government risk defense strategy (link)

With the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) recently launching the online Customs Refund Portal (CAPE) and the refund process worth about KRW 244 trillion (USD 166 billion) in full swing, a seminar will be held to diagnose changes in the global trade environment and strengthen the practical response capabilities of foreign companies. Daeryun Law Firm, together with the Korea Foreign Companies Association (KOFA), will hold a conference room at the Daeryun main office in Park One, Yeouido, Seoul at 3 p.m. on the 7th of next month. It was announced on the 22nd that it would hold a ‘US tariff refund and trade risk response seminar for foreign companies’. Any foreign company executives or managers from related departments such as HR, legal affairs, finance, purchasing, SCM, and logistics can attend the seminar. Applications for attendance and detailed curriculum can be found on the Daeryun Law Firm website. This seminar goes beyond providing guidance on the refund application process and is designed to help build preemptive governance to respond to complex legal and contractual issues that may arise after refunds and trade pressure from the United States. At the seminar, Daeryun experts with expertise in customs and global corporate law will appear as presenters. The seminar will be held in a total of two sessions, and in the first part, customs expert Jae-ho Myung will present on the topic of ‘U.S. IEEPA tariff refund system and latest practical trends.’ Commissioner Myeong is an expert who has overseen trade review and FTA consulting at major companies such as Hyundai Express and Korea Origin Information Service. It presents strategies to respond to administrative difficulties and customs screening that companies may face during the refund process. In Part 2, foreign attorney Dong-Hoo Son (USA) will present on the topic ‘Issues after refund: Official importer structure, refund attribution, and subsequent trade risks.’ Attorney Son is an investment and corporate law expert who has successfully led a number of cross-border projects, including consulting on global pharmaceutical companies' entry into the U.S. market. He explains that the opening of CBP's portal is a practical follow-up to the U.S. Federal Court's unconstitutional ruling in February, and presents scenarios that foreign companies may experience. Specifically, we plan to deal in depth with practical sensitive issues such as the step-by-step application scope of the CAPE refund system, response to refund settlement disputes between headquarters and corporations, and follow-up response directions for CAPE exclusion cases. Daeryun Kim Kuk-il, CEO of CBP, said, “With the operation of CBP’s portal, a practical path has been opened for importers who paid the so-called Trump tariffs to receive refunds.” “The goal is to ensure logical consistency,” he emphasized. Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] Seoul Newspaper - Daeryun·KOFA to hold ‘US Tariff Refund and Trade Risk Response Seminar’ on the 7th of next month (Go here) Edaily - Daeryun to hold ‘US Tariff Refund and Trade Risk Seminar’ with KOFA on the 7th of next month (Go here) Beyond Post - Daeryun and KOFA hold ‘US Tariff Refund and Trade Risk Response Seminar’ (Go here)