Press Coverage

A man in his 40s, who had been investigated for causing an accident while changing lanes and running away, was not indicted. According to the legal community on the 24th, the Cheonan Branch of the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office decided not to indict driver A, who was suspected of causing death by fleeing under the Aggravated Punishment Act for Specific Crimes in January. While driving a passenger car in September 2024, Mr. A made a non-contact while changing lanes from the second lane to the first lane. He was suspected of causing the accident. At the time, the motorcyclist B, who was riding behind him, tried to change lanes at the same time as Mr. A and fell while suddenly braking. As a result of this accident, Mr. B suffered a serious injury of 12 weeks. Afterwards, Mr. A left the scene without any special relief measures and was investigated. Mr. A denied the charge. Although he saw the motorcycle fall immediately after changing lanes, he did not recognize that the accident was caused by him. At the same time, the motorcycle was traveling faster than the speed limit at the time. The police believed that Mr. A fell while suddenly braking. The police transferred the case to the prosecution, believing that Mr. A was guilty based on the fact that he left the scene immediately after the accident. However, the prosecution's judgment was different. After reviewing the black box video, accident details, and road conditions, they concluded that it would have been difficult for Mr. A to recognize that the accident was caused by him. The prosecution said that Mr. He explained that there is a possibility that the victim thought he had caused the accident alone due to road conditions while slowing down. He also added that, considering that Mr. A obeyed the signals and drove in accordance with the general traffic flow after the accident, it is difficult to acknowledge his intention to run away or avoid relief measures even after recognizing the accident. Attorney Dae-som Yoon of the Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, "In a non-contact accident that occurred immediately after changing lanes, recognition of the accident is a key issue," adding, "The driving speed of the motorcycle and the accident Considering the aspects and subsequent driving behavior, we were able to arrive at a decision not to indict by legally demonstrating that there was a strong possibility that the client did not recognize the cause of the accident.”[View full article] A serious motorcycle accident occurred while changing lanes...Why was the driver who left the scene 'not prosecuted'? (Shortcut)

Many people believe that cheating in a marriage, commonly referred to as infidelity, requires a physical relationship. Therefore, most people believe that if they only communicated without actually meeting, there is no legal liability. But the court's perspective is different. Our Supreme Court defines unjust acts that cause divorce and alimony claims as 'a broader concept that includes adultery, but does not amount to adultery, but is any act that is not faithful to the couple's duty of chastity.' In other words, even if there was no sexual intercourse, if an action was taken that broke the trust between the couple, it could be legally considered misconduct as a violation of the duty of chastity. This attitude of the court was clearly revealed in a recent case that the author worked on. The client, Mr. A, was greatly shocked when he happened to see a message that his spouse shared with Mr. B, who was an acquaintance. This is because the spouse was expressing to Mr. B his dissatisfaction and difficulties in married life. The two seemed to have shared a deep emotional connection. In particular, the two people planned a specific meeting, and during this process, the spouse said, ‘Please hug me when you meet,’ and Mr. B also responded positively. Accordingly, Mr. A filed a lawsuit against Mr. B, claiming alimony for incest. Mr. B protested, saying, “I have never actually met him and only listened to his concerns as a friend,” but the court ruled that Mr. B was responsible for compensation. Even if there was no physical meeting, the act of exchanging rational feelings while knowing that the spouse was present, criticizing the spouse, and building an emotional bond was viewed as a violation of the marital life. So, what kind of acts will the court recognize as misconduct? According to precedent, the scope is quite comprehensive. Regardless of whether or not you are having sex, using nicknames such as ‘honey’ or ‘honey’ or exchanging explicit expressions of affection such as ‘I miss you’ or ‘I love you’ is clearly cheating. Furthermore, even if there is no physical contact, conversations containing emotional connection such as 'hug' or planning specific meetings are also included in the category of cheating. In other words, if you go beyond just saying hello and share your daily routine and form an emotional dependence like a lover, it is difficult to avoid liability for damages due to illegal acts. What you need to be especially careful about is cheating under the guise of counseling. A common mistake made in relationships with married people is crossing the line while listening to concerns about marital conflict. The court strictly distinguishes between the act of listening to a person's concerns as a friend and the act of narrowing the emotional distance by blaming the spouse. When the other person gossips about their spouse, agreeing to it and belittling the other spouse by saying things like, "I'm a waste of you," or "I wouldn't do that," can be considered an act that promotes the breakdown of the marital relationship. Therefore, when interacting with a married person, thorough caution is needed to avoid the possibility of misunderstanding from a third party. The most certain criterion is ‘Is it honorable to disclose the contents of this conversation to the other spouse?’ If you feel like you want to hide anything, you should recognize that the relationship has already exceeded the risk level and keep your distance. Conversely, there are many people who have caught the circumstances of their spouse's affair, but hesitate to take legal action because there is no conclusive evidence to prove a physical relationship. However, the court comprehensively judges the emotional distance between the two people through various evidence such as KakaoTalk, text messages, and SNS. Even if the sexual intercourse scene was not captured, it is important to remember that if there are clear traces of emotional infidelity that betrayed trust as spouses in the exchanged conversation, the court will hold the person accountable severely.● Contributions by external writers may differ from the editorial direction of this paper. Gyeonggi Ilbo webmaster@kyeonggi.com[View full article] [Contribution] Is even a ‘hug’ message an affair?… Emotional connection defined by precedent is (link)

<Anchor>Users of Coupang, where a large-scale personal information leak occurred, have filed a lawsuit against Coupang. Class action lawsuits have begun in the U.S. as well as in Korea and are receiving a lot of attention. Reporter Gil Jae-seop reported from Seoul. <Reporter> The domestic law firm that first filed a criminal complaint against Coupang has initiated a suit for punitive damages in the U.S. along with a domestic civil suit. The U.S. class action lawsuit has a big difference in the amount of compensation compared to the domestic lawsuit. Yes. {Kook-il Kim/CEO of Daeryun Law Firm/For personal information leaks due to gross negligence, the amount of compensation can be increased exponentially in a punitive manner. The amount of damages is punitive, ranging from tens of billions of dollars to several trillions. } The domestic public-private joint investigation team announced that Coupang's personal information was leaked at 33.67 million cases. However, it was revealed that the delivery address list page containing personal information of family members and acquaintances and common entrance passwords was also viewed 148 million times, so the scale of the leak could be larger. {Choi Woo-hyuk/Ministry of Science and ICT, Information Security Network Policy Division Director/This is clearly management's It's a problem. It seems difficult to view it as an intelligent attack.} Domestic users can also participate in the class action lawsuit filed by Coupang victims in the United States. You can apply without cost through the website banner of SJKP Law Firm in New York, a partner of the domestic law firm. {Kook-il Kim/CEO of Daeryun Law Firm/Class Action (Class Action) Applicants can continue to join until the court decides. There are now more than 7,000 people.} A class action lawsuit by Coupang delivery riders has also been initiated separately from the users. A total of 135,000 Coupang riders' personal information was leaked around 2021. {Gyo-hyeon Koo/Public Transport Workers' Union Riders Union Branch Manager/It cannot be denied that this is too clear evidence that the company did not take any responsibility or take any measures regarding security issues regarding the leakage of personal information.} Coupang said in 2024 Although we promised to prevent recurrence of personal information leaks in November, 33 million pieces of personal information were leaked in just one year. Interest in domestic and foreign lawsuits that will determine Coupang's responsibility for this is expected to increase in the future. This is KNN Gil Jae-seop from Seoul. Video report by Park Eon-guk[View full article] Interested in class action lawsuit for Coupang personal information leak victims (link)

Providing professional legal advice on overall industry-academia cooperation projects promoted by Jeju National University - Expanding practical internship program in connection with Daeryun's overseas network Daeryun Law Firm announced on the 20th that it has signed a business agreement (MOU) with Jeju National University. At the agreement ceremony held at the president's office of Jeju National University Ara Campus on the 10th, CEO of Daeryun Kim Kuk-il, lawyer Ko Seung-seok, lawyer Choi Gwang-hyeon, Jeju National University President Kim Il-hwan, Dean of Academic Affairs Jeong Seung-dal, and Kim Seong-wook attended the agreement ceremony. The Minister of Management Innovation and others attended. Jeju National University, which opened in 1952, is a national university that has led the development of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province and has high research capabilities in specialized fields such as tourism, marine, and environment. Based on its geographical advantage of being the center of Northeast Asia, it has continued active international exchanges and established a foundation for nurturing global talent. Through this agreement, Daeryun will provide professional legal advice throughout the industry-academia cooperation projects promoted by Jeju National University. In particular, we plan to utilize Daeryun's global network to strengthen the legal support system for overseas exchanges and international cooperation projects. In addition, we plan to gradually expand various programs to strengthen global capabilities, such as providing students with overseas branch internships and work experience opportunities. Jeju National University President Kim Il-hwan said, "We expect that the university's various projects will be able to receive professional legal support through cooperation with Daeryun, which is leaping forward as a global law firm." “We will create a practical foundation to grow into a competent legal expert,” said Kim Kuk-il, CEO of Management. “Daeryun is continuously strengthening its global legal service system by expanding its cooperation network with law firms and professional institutions in major countries such as the United States, China, and Japan.” He added, “We will establish a close cooperation system with Jeju National University, which has active overseas exchanges, to provide students with opportunities for international practical experience, and to build a practical cooperation model that fosters excellent talent with base national universities.” Reporter Cheon Ju-young (young1997@mydaily.co.kr)[View full article] Daeryun Law Firm and Jeju National University sign an MOU for legal advice and talent development (Click here)

A woman who was indicted on charges of attempted extortion after threatening to file criminal charges against her family if they did not give them a settlement was acquitted. According to the legal community on the 20th, the Suncheon branch of the Gwangju District Court acquitted Ms. A, a woman in her 40s who was put on trial on charges of attempted extortion last January. Ms. A has been going through a long conflict with Mr. B and his wife, the landlords of the building where she lived, since 2023. During this process, Ms. A accused B's husband of trespassing. She later made a statement to Ms. B, saying, "If you do not give me the settlement, I will file additional charges against my husband for sexual harassment and other charges." In response, Ms. B filed a complaint, claiming that Ms. A tried to extort the settlement amount under the pretext of filing a criminal complaint. Ms. A denied the charges. Ms. B's husband repeatedly entered her residence without her consent, and even caused her to feel actual sexual humiliation. At the same time, she only explained the criminal complaint process and attempted to threaten or extort the settlement amount. He emphasized that there was no intention. The court accepted Mr. A's claim. The court said, "The main part of the facts that the defendant claimed to be a sex-related crime appear to be consistent with the truth, and it is quite possible that he felt sexual shame in the situation." It said, "The defendant's words and actions are likely to be seen as being related to the exercise of the right to file a complaint surrounding a sex-related crime." In addition, the court said, "In the process of discussing a criminal settlement, he did not exaggerate or emphasize the damage he suffered or the surrounding circumstances." Even if it was expressed, it is difficult to immediately evaluate it as an abuse of rights or an act of blackmail,” he added. Attorney Lee Kang-jae of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, explained, “Attempted extortion is not established simply by mentioning the possibility of criminal charges or suggesting an agreement,” and added, “It must be judged by strictly distinguishing whether there was a threat to the extent of suppressing the other party’s free decision-making and whether the purpose was to obtain unfair property benefits.” #incident #judgment #Attempted extortion #Not guilty #Threat #Money extortion #Gwangju Shin Min-ji (sourminjee@ikbc.co.kr)[View full article] Woman who mentioned suing while demanding settlement money... Court says it was not attempted blackmail, not guilty (Click here)

As famous celebrities became embroiled in suspicions of ‘injection aunts’, the practice of medical visits outside hospitals was put on the chopping block. We looked into the legal standards, exceptions, and level of punishment for home visits, which are widely practiced even among the general public. Following comedian Park Na-rae, the so-called ‘rosacea aunt’ controversy is spreading widely in the entertainment industry, including famous idol group members and YouTubers. When suspicions arose, they admitted to illegally visiting medical services and declared a cessation of broadcasting activities. Aunt Juju refers to a type of ‘unlicensed illegal medical practitioner.’ It is a metaphorical term for a woman who visits homes without a medical license and illegally administers nutritional supplements or injections. It is difficult to dismiss illegal medical visits as an aberration of some celebrities. In online communities such as mom cafes and SNS, you can easily find posts such as “Looking for a nurse to give injections at home” or “I have an IV in my family at home because I have a nurse.” In one online cafe, there was even a line of comments such as “I left your number in a message” on a post asking “I’m not feeling well right now. Can I get an IV in 2 hours?” This suggests that visiting medical services are being carried out without protection even among the general public. Jang Hyeon-jae, director of Fatima Clinic, a specialist in home visits for 29 years, cited ‘lack of awareness’ as the main reason for illegal visit treatment. There are many people who view IV treatment outside the hospital as a simple nutritional supplement and do not recognize it as a medical practice. Director Jang Hyeon-jae said, “When we provide on-site treatment, due to the nature of the space, we are not fully equipped with medical equipment like hospitals, so we are more careful about diagnosis.” Non-medical people without medical qualifications visit ‘Aunt Rosacea’According to Article 33 of the Medical Service Act, IV procedures performed outside hospitals are clearly illegal under the Medical Service Act. This means that the procedure should only be performed at medical institutions where medical services can be performed. However, as an exception, in cases where emergency patients are treated in accordance with the Emergency Medical Services Act or at the request of the patient or patient's guardian, treatment may be performed at a location other than a medical institution. In addition, visitation treatment is permitted when the head of the national or local government deems it necessary for the public interest or when there are unavoidable reasons for providing treatment at the patient's location. So what are the criteria for judging the first exception, ‘emergency patient’? Attorney Jang Se-chang of Daeryun Law Firm said, “It depends on the judgment of the medical staff,” and added, “Under the exception rule that ‘treatment is possible upon request from the patient or guardian,’ it is possible to receive on-site treatment even if it is not an emergency.” He said, “However, if you use visit treatment even if you are able to move or it is not an emergency, you cannot apply for health insurance medical fees,” and added, “The patient must pay the full cost of visit treatment.” The court and the Ministry of Health and Welfare are interpreting the exceptional circumstances mentioned above relatively strictly. For example, in 2011, in a case where a medical corporation required its doctors to regularly visit multiple social welfare facilities and provide treatment, the Supreme Court ruled that ‘medical treatment at the request of a patient or patient’s guardian’ only means cases in which it is provided in response to an individual and specific request from a specific patient. This means that the act of deliberately repeating medical visits without the patient's request may also constitute a violation of medical law. Visiting treatment is only possible with a domestic medical license. In other words, it means that medical practices such as nurses coming to people’s homes to prescribe prescriptions and administer injections are ‘illegal.’ Some say that “retired nurses and currently active nurses can apply,” but this is also not true. This is because Article 27 of the Medical Service Act states, “Medical personnel cannot perform medical practices other than those licensed.” Nurses serve as assistants in medical treatment performed under the guidance of doctors. This means that nurses can administer drugs according to the doctor's prescriptions and instructions, but they cannot decide the type or dosage of the drug on their own. However, there is an exception in cases where patients who have been discharged after surgery or have difficulty moving receive ‘home nursing services.’ A family nurse practitioner who has passed the national qualification examination can administer medication according to a doctor's prescription at a location other than a medical institution. Therefore, the medical community believes that “those who are called ‘aunts of injections’ are likely to be non-medical people who are not qualified to visit medical services.”The risks and punishment levels of illegal medical visits must be emphasized.In online communities, there are also stories of experiences in which a family member or acquaintance who is a doctor provided medical treatment on a visit. Jinhee Kim, a medical lawyer, said, “Cases like this can be viewed as the standard for general visit treatment.” He said, “However, in accordance with relevant laws, you must keep a medical record containing symptoms, diagnosis, treatment process, and details to avoid problems later.” If a person who is not qualified to be a medical professional provides on-site treatment, he or she may be subject to imprisonment of up to 5 years or a fine of up to 50 million won. Attorney Jang Se-chang warned, “If such an act is repeatedly carried out for money or made into a business, the ‘Special Measures Act on the Control of Health Crimes’ rather than the Medical Service Act applies, and the person can be imprisoned for life or more than two years.” According to a 1997 case law, “if a medical visit is carried out with the intention to repeat illegal medical practice, it is considered ‘medical practice as a profession,’ even if the act is limited to a one-time act.” The same goes for drugs. According to the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, non-pharmacy owners (pharmacists or oriental pharmacists) cannot sell medicines, and medicines cannot be sold in places other than stores. In particular, prescription drugs can only be sold with a doctor's prescription. Violation of this may result in imprisonment of up to 5 years or a fine of up to 50 million won according to the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act. It is also illegal for pharmacists to provide on-site medical treatment, diagnose a patient's illness, and provide prescription medication. In fact, in 2017, the Supreme Court judged and punished a case in which a person holding only a pharmacist's license performed medical treatment that falls within the exclusive domain of a doctor as an unlicensed medical practice. What kind of punishment will a patient who received medical treatment receive? If the patient did not know that the medical practice was illegal, in principle, he or she is not subject to criminal punishment. However, if you are more than a simple victim and are an ‘instructor’ who caused someone to practice medicine without a license, you cannot be free from legal responsibility. Article 27, Paragraph 5 of the Medical Service Act stipulates that “no one shall allow a non-medical person to perform medical services.” Even if the subject of treatment is ‘oneself,’ it is against the law. There is also a need to reconsider awareness of illegal home visits and drug prescriptions. In particular, there is a tendency to think that nutritional supplements, such as intravenous fluids, can be easily administered anywhere without a doctor's diagnosis. In principle, fluids are prescribed when there is a medical need, such as dehydration, electrolyte abnormalities, or infection. Lee Yoo-jeong, a professor of family medicine at Korea University Guro Hospital, warned, “If you repeatedly receive intravenous fluids without a doctor’s prescription, infection at the injection site or inflammation of blood vessels may occur. Excessive moisture builds up in the body, which poses a risk to the heart and lungs, and in severe cases, there is a possibility that it may lead to systemic infection.” #Home medical care #Illegal procedure #Illegal prescription #Injection aunt #Women’s Donga[View full article] Aftereffects of the ‘aunt who gave injections’, “To what extent is home visit treatment legal?” (Shortcut)

33 million information leaked... The meaning of the 'subclass' strategy for Korean consumers There is heated discussion both inside and outside the legal community regarding the recent Coupang, Inc. incident in which personal information of 33 million people was leaked. At a time when most people are preparing for domestic lawsuits, there are many who are questioning the fact that my law firm, SJKP, LLP (Daeryun Law Firm's U.S. partner), submitted a complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (EDNY). The question is, “For a company that generates most of its sales in Korea, why did they choose the US court, which has difficult procedures?” The answer to that question is clear. The core of this lawsuit is to hold Coupang's U.S. headquarters (Inc.) fundamentally responsible for the incident and force it to establish a practical system to prevent recurrence. And SJKP's judgment is that the optimal judicial battlefield to realize this is the United States. This is not simply an attempt to assert the superiority of American legal procedures. It is the result of intense legal consideration to provide the most practical means of relief to victims in cross-border data breach incidents. The point that differentiates this lawsuit most from domestic lawsuits is the expansion of 'defendant eligibility.' In the complaint, not only Coupang Corporation but also Chairman Kim Beom-seok were listed as co-defendants. This is not simply a symbolic choice based on the position of corporate representative. Under U.S. law, if a corporate violation occurs due to direct involvement or approval of management, or due to gross negligence in management, the executive may be held liable separately from the corporation. SJKP believed that Chairman Kim Beom-seok should take actual responsibility for this 'internal control failure' as the final decision-maker on security policy and budget. Furthermore, it is also clear that there is a violation of Article 349 of the New York State Corporation Law (N.Y. GBL). This provision strictly prohibits acts or practices that deceive consumers. Coupang has continued to give the impression that it has a sufficient security system, but in reality it operates a lax security system that falls short of this, misleading consumers. The final responsibility for these 'deceptive practices' cannot but fall on Chairman Kim Beom-seok, who oversaw the policy direction. In addition, we plan to actively utilize the 'discovery' system, which is the core of US civil litigation, to identify the governance failure, which is the root cause of this incident. Unlike in Korea, where it is difficult to prove a victim, in American courts, decisive evidence such as internal emails or decision-making meeting minutes can be forcibly obtained. Through this, SJKP will thoroughly uncover whether Chairman Kim Beom-seok and the headquarters were aware of security vulnerabilities but tolerated improvements for profitability reasons. This goes beyond a simple data leak and proves the 'collapse of governance', which is a neglect of the responsibilities of the highest decision-making system, and will become a powerful driving force for demanding strict legal responsibility. Some are focusing on the amount of damages claimed over $5 million (approximately KRW 7.3 billion), but the true value of this lawsuit, which legal experts should pay attention to, lies in 'equitable damages.' Unlike domestic civil lawsuits, which often limit to ex post facto monetary compensation, U.S. courts can issue 'Declaratory Relief', which officially confirms that a company's actions are illegal, through a ruling, and 'Injunctive Relief' that forces specific actions. In addition, SJKP requested the court to order Coupang to establish the best security system and mandate a multi-factor authentication system. This goes beyond a simple agreement and is a will to prevent a second leak by forcibly reorganizing the company's security governance. In addition, the goal is to bring about 'systematic change' by demanding strengthened monitoring services for minors and the elderly who are vulnerable to identity theft. Another decisive reason for choosing the U.S. court is the strategy of forming a 'class'. This lawsuit has New York residents as the representative plaintiffs, but victims residing in Korea are designated as a 'subclass'. A subclass is a device that separately classifies and protects groups with different residences or legal issues within the overall group. Through this structure, Korean consumers will be able to enjoy the same effects of the U.S. court's favorable ruling, and the benefits of the security enhancement order will also extend beyond the border to Korean users. In the end, the reason why SJKP headed to the U.S. court is clear. This lawsuit is not just a battle for compensation, but a fight to establish the company's 'data security obligations' that meet global standards. We are confident that this lawsuit will become a milestone in new digital justice that prevents global companies from avoiding responsibility and ensures that consumer rights are fully protected regardless of national borders. Small and Medium Business Team[View full article] Why New York and not Seoul... Coupang lawsuit asks for ‘digital responsibility’ beyond punishment (Shortcut)

Legal advice for Korean companies entering Vietnam… Daeryun Law Firm, a one-stop support company for investment, licensing and dispute response, provides customized legal solutions through local practice-based partnerships in Vietnam.” Daeryun Law Firm announced on the 12th that it has signed a business agreement (MOU) with Tri Minh Law Firm in Vietnam and will establish a legal service cooperation system between Korea and Vietnam. The agreement ceremony, which was held virtually at the Daeryun Gangnam branch office on the 4th, included CEO of Daeryun Jeong Chan-woo, lawyer Yoon Kyeong-won, and Tri Minh Law Firm. Key officials from both sides, including representative attorney Nguyen Minh Anh and Ho Chi Minh branch vice-governor Nguyen Bui Ba Huy, attended. Tri Minh Law Firm was established in Hanoi, Vietnam in 2007 and has strengths in the field of foreign investment and corporate legal affairs. In particular, based on a cooperative network with major government agencies such as the Vietnamese Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Planning and Investment, it helps foreign companies enter Vietnam. Through this MOU, the two companies plan to provide integrated legal services to Korean companies pursuing entry into Vietnam and Vietnamese companies interested in the Korean market. Specifically, ▲Advice on licensing and investment in Vietnam entry ▲Advice on corporate investment and M&A structures between Korea and Vietnam ▲Legal support for real estate and construction projects ▲Advice on finance, banking and commercial transactions We cooperate in various fields such as ▲labor, personnel and intellectual property rights advisory ▲joint response to local disputes and commercial arbitration. In particular, this MOU is significant in that it goes beyond simple business cooperation and establishes a foundation for cooperation that expands legal service exchanges between Vietnam and Korea and provides practical support for the mutual advancement of companies. NGUYEN MINH ANH, representative attorney at Tri Minh Law Firm, said, “We are very honored and proud to have signed an MOU with Daelun. “I think this agreement will not only be a cooperation between two law firms, but will also be an important starting point for legal cooperation between Vietnam and Korea and a meaningful milestone that will provide real value to companies and citizens of both countries,” said CEO Daeryun Jeong Chan-woo. “We will provide specialized legal solutions for the Vietnamese market through cooperation with law firms.” Meanwhile, Daeryun Law Firm is continuously strengthening its global legal service system by expanding its cooperation network with law firms and professional organizations in major countries such as the United States, China, and Japan. #Vietnam #Daeryun #Business Agreement Seok-ho Park (haitai2000@ikbc.co.kr)[View full article] “Building a legal bridge between Korea and Vietnam”... Daeryun signs MOU with Vietnam's Trimin Law Firm (Click here)

"It is unfair to consider an act repeated for several months as not serious after several months of school violence," said the court, which judged the school violence repeated for several months individually and judged the "soft baton" punishment given to the perpetrator to be unfair. According to the legal community on the 12th, the 1st and 2nd administrative divisions of the Incheon District Court ruled that the 1st and 2nd administrative divisions of the Incheon District Court on January 22 were teenager A at the Incheon Southern Office of Education. A decision was made in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against the superintendent of schools to cancel the written apology. Previously, Group A filed an administrative lawsuit against the school violence review committee's decision to issue a written apology (No. 1), the lowest level, to student B. Group A is said to have suffered physical and mental harassment from Group B and his group since 2024. At that time, it was investigated that Group B and others had used violence against Group A under the pretext of ‘sparring’ (exchanging prices with an opponent in boxing). Afterwards, Group A’s parents obtained a pledge to prevent recurrence from the offending student, but Group B continued to harass Group A by swearing at him or criticizing him in front of the students around him. Ultimately, Group A reported the damage to the school. However, the School Violence Committee issued the lowest level of written apology (No. 1) on the grounds that the vulgar language used by Group B was a common expression among students and that the remarks encouraging bullying were not directly aimed at Group A. In response, Group A protested, saying, “This is a rash measure taken without a proper investigation,” and argued that stronger measures are needed. The Office of Education countered, saying that it had obtained sufficient statements from the parties and the students who witnessed it and conducted a thorough investigation. In addition, he emphasized that the investigation cannot be considered inadequate just because A's claim was not accepted, and that the School Violence Response Review Committee cannot impose disciplinary action based on uncertain circumstances or speculation. However, the court ruled in A's favor. The court ruled, “Even if it was not a direct comment toward the plaintiff (Group A), looking at the entire context, there is ample room to view it as words and actions intended to exclude the plaintiff from a public place and intentionally humiliate him.” He continued, “It is not reasonable to deny intentionality from the perspective of deeming the actions repeated for several months to be insignificant when judged individually,” adding, “Imposing a disposition without even confirming additional facts simply because the statements of both sides are contradictory and there is no evidence is a serious error in the basic judgment elements. Mr. A's legal representative, Kim Dong-jin, a lawyer at the Daeryun Law Firm, said, "The regulations for handling school violence cases define bullying and ridicule as types of bullying, but the Office of Education only judged whether this constituted verbal violence and did not review whether it was bullying." He added, "Even though Mr. B's remarks seemed ordinary on the outside, we were able to win the case by proving that behind them there was an intention to persistently isolate and ridicule Mr. A." Reporter Lee Sil-yu lsy0808@kyeonggi.com[View full article] Gyeonggi Ilbo - After suffering from school violence for several months, only a ‘written apology’?… Court: “It is not valid” (Shortcut) Herald Economy - The Office of Education says ‘it’s over with an apology’ to the victims of terrible school violence… Court: “Disposition is unfair” (Shortcut)

Daeryun Law Firm announced on the 12th that it had successfully completed the ‘Legal Dispute Response and Investment Strategy Seminar for Companies Entering China and Vietnam’. This seminar was prepared to explore preemptive response strategies for Korean companies to the rapidly changing business environment in China and the Vietnamese market, a key point of the global supply chain, and was jointly held by Daeryun and the Korea-China Association of Korea on the 11th at the FKI Tower Conference Center in Yeouido, Seoul. The seminar site included traditional areas such as manufacturing and construction. Executives from various industries preparing to target the local domestic market, including industrial groups, distribution, healthcare, and beauty, attended. In particular, participants who wanted to explore local M&A and new business opportunities beyond simple production base relocation showed great interest. The seminar was divided into a total of two sessions. Attorney Kyung-won Yoon, who was the first presenter in the first China session, introduced risks in each field such as contracts, intellectual property rights, labor, and investment recovery in detail under the topic of ‘Types of legal disputes and points to keep in mind when entering the Chinese market.’ Attorney Yoon emphasized, “In Chinese business, preliminary review of contracts is the first step in preventing disputes.” He emphasized, "Clarify the provisions for resolving disputes with local partners. Preemptive registration and monitoring are essential for intellectual property rights issues such as trademark infringement." Regarding China's recently strengthened data protection laws, he advised, "Special attention should be paid to compliance such as safety evaluation of data transfers abroad." Park Seung-chan, chairman of the Korea-China Association and director of the China Management Research Institute, made a presentation on the topic of 'the recent Korea-China summit and our companies' response.' Chairman Park analyzed, “Korea-China economic relations have gone beyond simple mutual complementation and have entered the ‘5.0 era’ of full competition and horizontal cooperation. As China’s technological independence and supply chain internalization accelerate, our companies must read the flow of supply chain reorganization and establish more sophisticated localization strategies.” In the second Vietnam session, lawyer Daeryun Choi Young-jin explained ‘Types of legal disputes and points to keep in mind when entering Vietnam.’ Attorney Choi compared the pros and cons of establishing a new corporation, joint venture, and M&A as methods of entering Vietnam. He explained, “M&A allows for quick market entry, but there is a risk of inheriting hidden risks such as tax and land use rights of the acquired company. Statement guarantees and contingent liability compensation structures through acquisition contracts, etc. are essential.” He then emphasized, “Borrowing in the name of local people should be avoided as it is difficult to be legally protected and may lead to loss of management rights.” Choi Ho-cheol, PM of the Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency (KOTRA), gave a presentation on the topic of ‘Vietnam Investment Advancement Support Project, Success Stories, and Investment Opportunities.’ PM Choi said, “Vietnam is transforming beyond a production base into a huge consumer market with a population of 100 million,” and “The M&A strategy that goes beyond simple manufacturing and targets domestic markets such as distribution, consumer goods, and healthcare is effective.” Daeryun Kim Kook-il, CEO of Management, said, “I hope that this seminar will serve as an opportunity for our companies to find practical solutions in an increasingly complex global trade environment.” He added, “We will continue to work on local legal risk diagnosis through Chinese and Vietnamese groups.” “We will closely support the company’s entire overseas expansion process, including M&A and dispute resolution,” he said. Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] Seoul Shinmun - Daeryun Law Firm successfully completes ‘strategy seminar’ for companies entering China and Vietnam (Go here) Sejeong Ilbo - Daeryun Law Firm’s ‘Strategy Seminar’ for companies entering China and Vietnam was a success (Go here)