Press Coverage

Coupang, which caused a large-scale personal information leak, is facing a series of class action lawsuits in the United States, where its headquarters are located. As judicial risks are gradually increasing, including the addition of the law firm that led the lawsuit related to the 'Dieselgate' emissions manipulation scandal by Volkswagen, Germany's largest automobile company in 2015, there are predictions that the US lawsuit could become the detonator of the Coupang incident. U.S. law firm Hagens Berman announced on the 24th (local time), “We have filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Coupang investors against Coupang Inc., Coupang’s parent company.” Hagans Berman is a law firm that was the first in the United States to file a lawsuit related to Volkswagen's Dieselgate, which shocked the global automobile industry 10 years ago, and is credited with playing a leading role in obtaining compensation of $14.7 billion (about 17 trillion won in Korean currency at the time). The law firm said, "This lawsuit focuses on whether (Coupang) misled investors about the appropriateness of cybersecurity protocols." He also said, “An issue is also whether Coupang’s disclosure system was sufficient to notify investors in a timely manner within four days of a serious cybersecurity incident.” Coupang reported the relevant facts to the U.S. financial authorities on the 16th (local time), about a month after becoming aware of the leak incident (the 18th of last month). It is said that the rule that a serious cybersecurity incident must be announced within 4 business days was violated. This law firm plans to recruit additional Coupang Inc investors who have suffered damages by February 17th next year. The industry predicts that judicial risks originating from the United States may be the detonator of the Coupang incident. In particular, in the United States, there is a 'discovery system' in civil litigation that mutually discloses evidence held by the parties before the trial begins, so if the law firms' claims are accepted, Coupang Inc may have to disclose sensitive data such as internal meeting minutes and emails. Another reason to pay attention to the U.S. lawsuit is that if punitive damages are applied, the amount of compensation could be astronomically high. On the 18th (local time), attorney Lawrence Rosen and U.S. shareholders of Coupang Inc filed a class action lawsuit, saying, “Coupang’s inadequate security protocols allowed a former employee to gain unauthorized access to customer information for six months.” They cited ‘damage to shareholder value due to security failure’ and poor disclosure as justification for the lawsuit. Korean law firm Daeryun's U.S. subsidiary (SJKP) is also preparing a consumer class action lawsuit against Coupang Inc. Reporter Lee Young-gwan ykwan@chosun.com[View full article] Will the U.S. lawsuit be a ‘detonator’ for Coupang? The law firm that first sued Volkswagen for ‘Dieselgate’ joins the company

Ms. A received punishment from the School Violence Commission for causing school violence to three of her friends. Court said, "Most of the acts are not recognized as school violence...an abuse of discretion." A teenager who had been disciplined for being a perpetrator of school violence filed a lawsuit against the educational authorities to cancel the punishment and won. On the 11th of last month, the Uijeongbu District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the lawsuit filed by teenager A against the superintendent of the Gyeonggi-do Guri Namyangju Office of Education to cancel the punishment for a school violence offender. Previously, the Uijeongbu District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Last year, Ms. A was identified as a perpetrator of school violence by three friends from the same school. She was cited for reasons such as intentionally alienating certain people from her group of friends, creating a SNS group chat room with the exception of one person to gossip about them behind their backs, or causing embarrassment in public places. Accordingly, the School Violence Countermeasures Review Committee ordered Ms. A to perform 3 hours of school volunteer work, complete 2 hours of special education, and prohibit contact, threats, and retaliation against the victim until graduation. They protested against the school violence committee's decision. The school violence committee made its decision based on facts that were not true, and some of the plaintiff's actions could not be viewed as school violence beyond everyday fights or conflicts that occur in peer relationships. In addition, both parties claimed that the school violence committee deviated and abused its discretion in the process of considering the intentionality, seriousness, and persistence of school violence, such as gathering all cases with different periods, characteristics, and parties into one for deliberation. The court ruled in favor of both parties. There were a total of ten acts by Ms. A that the School Violence Committee used as the basis for disposition, and most of them were recognized as school violence even though they were acts that could not be evaluated as school violence as defined by the School Violence Prevention Act. The court also said, "The defendant evaluated the plaintiff's actions toward each victim as bullying on a continuous basis, but the actions toward two of the three victims cannot be recognized as school violence." The court also said, "The actions of two of the three victims cannot be recognized as school violence." He added, "Although one victim appears to have suffered psychologically, we took into consideration the fact that the conflict between the two does not appear to have started from the plaintiff's one-sided harassment." Attorney Kim Ho-jeong of Daeryun Law Firm, who acted as legal representative for Ms. A, said, "The School Violence Commission did not specifically specify the reason for the disposition regarding the content, extent, frequency, or circumstances of the act of school violence." He explained, "I emphasized that I lost it. #Disposition of school violence #Cancellation lawsuit #Court unfairness #Accident Park Seok-ho (haitai2000@ikbc.co.kr)[View full article] Why did the teenager who filed a lawsuit to cancel the school violence case win?

(Seoul = News 1) Reporter Han Soo-hyun = Coupang independently announced its own investigation results without consulting with the government and investigative agencies in relation to the customer information leak, amid continued criticism that it was a 'self-investigation', and executives including Coupang Inc. Chairman Kim Beom-seok were additionally sued for obstructing the investigation. According to the legal community on the 26th, Jihyang Law Firm represented the victims of Coupang's customer information leak and filed charges against top executives, including Chairman Kim and Coupang CEO Harold Rogers, for obstruction of official duties. They announced that they had submitted a complaint to the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency on charges of destruction of evidence and obstruction of business. Coupang announced in a press notice the previous day (25th) that this personal information leak incident was the sole crime of one former employee. Coupang said that, as a result of its own investigation, the employee had accessed the information of 33 million customers, but only stored the information of 3,000 accounts separately. However, while the public-private joint investigation team and police investigation are currently underway, the issue was raised that Coupang unilaterally announced the results of the investigation and announced them as if they were the results of an official investigation. The reliability of the announcement was also pointed out. Jihyang believed that Coupang's investigation and announcement of results was an attempt to interfere with the government's official investigation and work and systematically conceal the crime, and filed an additional complaint. Jihyang said, "Coupang's announcement of a 'self-investigation' is an act of deceiving both state agencies and the 33.7 million affected people," and pointed out, "It cannot be an act to neutralize the national response and mislead the investigation, rather than simply providing information." He added, "All responsibility falls on the former employee." “It was defined as a single crime committed by a single person, and the intention was to fundamentally block the possibility of systematic intervention or systemic security failure and reduce the scope of the investigation,” he said. “We cannot erase the suspicion that this is a typical ‘tail-cutting’ attempt to conceal the background of the incident and avoid top management’s responsibility.” In particular, Ji-hyang pointed out that it was a “serious act of obstruction of justice” when former employee A claimed to have personally recovered the laptop that was thrown into the river. “It is an attempt to preempt and contaminate the evidence, and it is an advanced tactic to confuse the investigation by damaging the evidentiary power and probative power of the original evidence and submitting contaminated evidence to the investigative agency,” he said. He continued, “Coupang directly interfered with the important self-protection task of responding to emergencies of each citizen by creating a false sense of security, and exposed 33.7 million citizens defenselessly to the possibility of paralysis of social life, such as massive smishing damage or account freezes.” He emphasized, “We must immediately ban all Coupang executives and employees from leaving the country, and quickly initiate a mandatory investigation, including search and seizure of the office and residences of those involved.” He added, “Chairman Kim, who is staying in the U.S., must be immediately summoned and investigated, and if he fails to comply, all means, including international criminal justice cooperation, must be taken.” Meanwhile, despite Coupang’s unilateral announcement, group lawsuits filed by Jihyang, Daeryun Law Firm, and LKB Pyeongsan are scheduled to proceed without change. Jang Ji-woon Attorney Dae-ryun said, "The fact that Coupang investigated first without handing over the identity of the secured distributor to the investigative agency raises suspicions of destruction of evidence and is highly likely to encourage distortion of the truth. It has no impact on future group lawsuits or criminal complaints." He added, "As the investigative agency is conducting the investigation, it is unlikely that the state agency will trust or cite the results of the suspect's own investigation, Coupang." He added, "The results of Coupang's investigation and the facts revealed through future investigations are unlikely to differ." “In this case, Coupang’s responsibility, including allegations of posthumous concealment, will only increase,” he added.[View full article] “Coupang’s announcement of its own investigation is obstruction of the investigation”… Chairman Kim Beom-seok additionally sued

A man who was involved in a 'currency exchange phone financial fraud (voice phishing)' crime while looking for a loan to cover his mother's medical expenses was acquitted. According to the legal community on the 26th, the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutor's Office decided not to indict Mr. A, a man in his 50s who was sent on charges of telecommunications financial fraud on the 13th of last month. Mr. A was deceived by an unidentified member of a telephone financial fraud organization last January and deposited money into his account by Mr. B. He was suspected of exchanging 15 million won into 6,000 dollars and 630,000 yen and delivering them to a gang member. Mr. B was deceived by a member of a telephone financial fraud organization who said, “You must make a deposit to receive a loan,” and deposited the money into Mr. A’s account. Mr. A denied the charge. He claimed, “I was simply deceived by the loan officer who offered currency exchange and transfer, saying, ‘If you want to issue a loan with company support funds, you need track records.’” He also explained, “There were questionable parts during the loan screening process, such as asking to take pictures and send them, but I had no idea that it was a phone financial fraud because I needed my mother’s medical expenses urgently.” The prosecution concluded that Mr. A only exchanged money twice over two days and that he immediately complained to the loan manager when his account was suspended, so he only trusted and followed the loan manager’s instructions and did not intentionally participate in the crime of phone financial fraud. Kim Sang-gu Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, Attorney Dae-ryun said, “Mr. A went to the police for consultation as soon as his account was suspended, and was able to get the charges acquitted by actively explaining that he did his best to restore the situation to its original state, including paying a settlement to Mr. B despite difficult economic conditions.” Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] 50-year-old not guilty in connection with phone fraud while trying to borrow money for mother's medical expenses

Class action lawsuits in full swing in the U.S. Following consumers, shareholder lawsuits are also underway. As a class action lawsuit is being pursued in the U.S. surrounding Coupang's large-scale personal information leak, the 'discovery (evidence discovery)' system is attracting attention as a key procedure that will determine the success or failure of the lawsuit. There are predictions that the U.S.-style litigation structure, which, unlike in Korea, allows forcibly securing internal company data, will be a watershed in dividing the scope of responsibility of Coupang's headquarters. According to the legal community on the 23rd, SJKP, the U.S. branch of Daeryun Law Firm, plans to file a consumer class action lawsuit against Coupang Inc, Coupang's parent company, in New York federal court at the end of this month or early next year after completing the recruitment of plaintiffs. Daeryun explains that the core of the lawsuit is to determine whether the headquarters was responsible for security investment and internal control rather than the personal information leak itself. Coupang I&C, listed on the U.S. stock exchange, is the parent company that owns 100% of Coupang Korea Corporation. The strategy put forward by SJKP is the American discovery system. Discovery is a process in which documents and electronic information held by the other party are compulsorily submitted prior to the trial on the merits, and can even include company internal data such as board meeting minutes, internal reporting data, security budget decision documents, and email and messenger records from the incident response process. SJKP's position is that through this, it will confirm whether Coupang's headquarters took appropriate response or management/supervision measures after the personal information leak incident. The legal world believes that discovery itself can be a significant burden on companies. Kang Dong-hee, an attorney at Yoon & Yang Law Firm, explained, “Unlike Korea’s document submission order, U.S. discovery allows for extensive internal data acquisition and even includes testimony from executives and employees in the process,” adding, “It can also be used as a means of pressuring companies to reach an early agreement.” Some analyzes say that Discovery's impact could be greater in shareholder class action lawsuits than in consumer lawsuits. Lee Eun-woo, a lawyer at Hyangyang Law Firm, said, “Discovery means preserving related data rather than deleting it before the full-scale evidence begins,” and predicted, “In this case, the impact through a shareholder class action lawsuit may be greater than that of the victims of domestic information leaks.” As a shareholder class action lawsuit is a case in which the amount of damage is large and law firms invest intensive manpower and resources, the explanation is that internal documents and the contents of witness interviews secured through a full-scale discovery process after the data freeze can be key evidence in determining who is responsible. Currently, in the United States, apart from consumer lawsuits, a class action lawsuit is being pursued centered on shareholders who suffered damage from the stock price drop due to Coupang's personal information leak. We the People Law Firm has begun recruiting litigants to file a shareholder class action lawsuit in New York federal court, and is considering the timing of recognition of the information leak incident and whether there is a delay in disclosure as key issues. The law firm believes that Coupang did not fulfill its obligation to disclose personal information in a timely manner as required by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) even though it was aware of the personal information leak. In addition, in the business report submitted in February of this year, it is said that key information regarding the 'possibility of cyber security threats having a significant impact on the company' was falsely or poorly disclosed. If a company's reputation or customer trust is damaged due to a cyber security incident, the SEC considers it a 'serious incident' and stipulates that it is subject to disclosure. The legal community believes that the possibility that failure to disclose the leak in time or to minimize the risk may fall under these standards cannot be ruled out.[View full article] ‘Discovery’ emerged due to the Coupang incident… It became a key strategy in U.S. court lawsuits [Evidence discovery system, changing the game] (Shortcut)

Recently, the number of cases where corporate executives are at the center of legal disputes is increasing due to the strengthening of the Severe Accident Punishment Act, the implementation of amendments to the Commercial Act, and the spread of shareholder activism. The ‘individualization of risk’ is accelerating, such as claiming compensation for damages or holding individual executives criminally liable. Accordingly, the size of the directors' liability insurance (D&O insurance) market is steadily growing every year. This product is a system that guarantees damages and litigation costs when financial damage occurs to shareholders and third parties due to an executive's professional negligence or failure to fulfill obligations. According to the Financial Supervisory Service, this year's D&O contract size is expected to increase by about 15% compared to the previous year to approximately 62 billion won by September. Compared to countries where such insurance is active, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan, the prevailing opinion is that it is still in its infancy, but this proves that the sense of legal crisis felt by executives is increasing. However, when an accident occurs, insurance payments are often rejected, or fierce legal battles break out between insurance companies and executives over the scope of compensation. So, what are the legal issues of D&O insurance that corporate managers must be aware of? First of all, we must clearly understand the scope of 'damages' covered by D&O insurance. The core of this insurance is to compensate for the resulting damages when an executive becomes legally liable for damages to a third party due to an unfair act committed while performing his or her duties. The unfair act referred to here is a broad concept that encompasses business negligence, negligence, mistakes, and omissions. This works in conjunction with the scope of responsibility of executives set by laws such as Article 399 (liability to the company) and Article 401 (liability to third parties) of the Commercial Act. The problem arises immediately after the accident occurs, at the stage of interpretation of the insurance company's disclaimer clause. Since many executives have purchased insurance, we believe the majority of legal costs will be covered. However, the insurance terms and conditions state that damages caused by ‘intentional or criminal acts’ are not compensated. Even if you are found guilty in a criminal case, no insurance money will be paid. In other words, if an investigation is initiated on charges of embezzlement, breach of trust, or violation of the Capital Markets Act, it is very likely that the insurance company will judge this as a reason for exemption and withhold or refuse insurance payment. Many clients knock on the door of law firms when faced with such situations. In this case, the lawyer's assistance does not stop at simply criminal defense against the investigative agency. Legally proving from the early stage of the investigation that the charge is a negligence in management judgment rather than an intentional crime is a key judgment standard when disputing immunity during the insurance payment process in the future. Only by proactively responding from the investigation stage when the charges are not confirmed can you prevent insurance payments from being rejected in the future. Just as important as insurance payment is the issue of burden of litigation costs. Typical damages lawsuits take several years until the Supreme Court makes a final decision, and it is virtually impossible for individual executives to cover large amounts of attorney fees and litigation costs until a decision is made. For this reason, it is necessary to utilize the 'advance payment clause for defense costs' in the terms and conditions to ensure that legal costs are paid in advance by the insurance company even before the judgment. However, for risk management purposes, insurance companies tend to be reluctant to pay out before the judgment is confirmed. This is because there is a possibility that the money already paid may not be returned if the grounds for exemption are recognized in the results of a future trial. Accordingly, it is important to persuade the insurance company through a letter of promise to return prepaid expenses when the grounds for exemption are confirmed. In this way, D&O insurance is more than a simple financial product, but a complex legal contract directly related to the survival of executives. The structure is such that insurance companies try to minimize payments by imposing strict terms and conditions, and executives must prove the legitimacy of their management activities and request defense. In the end, D&O insurance is an economic safety device that supports active management activities, but signing up does not automatically resolve all legal risks. True risk management is completed by establishing a compliance management system and responding to a crisis by closely analyzing insurance terms and conditions and commercial law responsibilities with legal experts from the beginning when a crisis occurs. Small Business Team[View full article]

Daeryun Law Firm announced that it will hold a 'Korea-US Integrated Asset Succession Strategy Seminar for Global Asset Owners' on the 16th of next month. This seminar is aimed at 'cross-border asset owners' who are considering not only domestic asset succession but also asset succession between Korea and the US due to their children studying abroad, immigration, acquisition of permanent residency, etc., or who are planning to enter the US. Attorney Sang-wook Oh of Daeryun, accountant Park Soo-jin, tax accountant Joo-hee Lee, and US attorney Dong-hu Son. He is scheduled to appear as a presenter. First, Sangwook Oh, a lawyer in the tax group with experience working at the National Tax Service and a tax group, introduces the latest case law on asset succession. Next, tax accountant Lee Joo-hee, who has performed numerous tax due diligence and transaction structure consultations for tax and accounting firms, will give a presentation on the Korean inheritance and gift tax structure and the impact of overseas factors. In addition, accountant Park Soo-jin, who has worked at Samil Accounting Corporation and LG Chem Europe GmbH, will share practical cases of inheritance and gift tax strategy consulting. Lastly, Dong-Hoo Son, an American lawyer who successfully assisted major Korean companies in entering the United States, will conduct a study on laws and cases related to asset succession in New York State. After the presentation, there will be time to explore practical response plans through Q&A with attendees. In order to prepare a customized seminar that will be of practical help to participants, Daeryun is receiving advance questionnaires on asset structure and succession concerns at the application stage. We provide more specific diagnosis and practical consulting by identifying each participant's asset structure in advance. Daeryun Kim Kook-il, CEO of Daeryun Law Firm, emphasized, "The moment a child acquires permanent residency in the United States or holds overseas assets, the succession strategy based on Korean standards may be neutralized or face an unexpected tax bomb. This seminar will be the first step in checking whether my asset structure is currently safe and drawing an integrated succession map encompassing both Korea and the United States." Applications are available through the website and are accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. Eunhye Lee (zhses3@joseilbo.com)[View full article] Tax Ilbo - Daeryun Law Firm to hold ‘Korea-US Integrated Asset Succession Seminar’ on the 16th of next month Seoul Shinmun - Daeryun Law Firm holds Korea-US Integrated Asset Succession Seminar

A high school student who was put on trial for forcibly sexually assaulting an elementary school student by threatening him was acquitted. According to the legal community on the 24th, the 2nd Criminal Division of the Jeju District Court acquitted teenager A, who was indicted on charges of violating the Special Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes, etc. on the 18th. In 2024, A was accused of sexually assaulting B, an elementary school student whom he had known, by threatening to "tell people around me about my sexual relationship" and sending obscene photos. I'm receiving it. However, Mr. A denied the charges and claimed, “It is true that I dated Ms. B, but I was not forced to have sexual intercourse.” He also raised questions about the credibility of Ms. B’s statement by pointing out that the location of the crime and the circumstances at the time that she stated were constantly being changed. Regarding the charge of sending obscene photos, Ms. B did not show any resistance at the time, but rather continued the conversation naturally. The court said, “The victim’s statement is inconsistent and objective, with the details of the damage changing.” “There are some contents that contradict the facts,” the ruling said. “It is possible that the victim falsely stated that she was a victim of sexual violence because she was afraid of being reprimanded by her guardian for her relationship with the defendant.” He continued, “The victim did not express any objection to the photos sent by the defendant and continued the conversation casually,” and declared “A not guilty,” saying, “It cannot be seen that he sent a sexually humiliating message against the victim’s will.” Lawyer Yongdu Park of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented A, said. “If there is no direct evidence other than the victim’s statement, there should be no room for reasonable doubt about the statement in light of objective circumstances or rules of experience,” he explained. “Based on the history of the two people’s relationship, we were able to obtain a not guilty verdict by emphasizing the lack of objectivity in Ms. B’s statement.” Intern reporter Seo Da-hee happiness@kyeonggi.com[View full article] High school student found not guilty on sexual assault charges... The reason revealed by the court is (link)

Consumers are increasingly criticizing Coupang for failing to come up with a relief plan for victims even a month after becoming aware of the customer personal information leak incident. In Busan, collective action appears to be in full swing, starting with a press conference by a civic group on the 15th, followed by the submission of complaints through law firms. According to Daeryun Law Firm on the 23rd, more than 3,900 people have participated in the lawsuit for damages against Coupang Inc, which is being filed by SJKP LLP, a local partner law firm in the United States. Coupang Inc, Coupang's parent company, submitted a report titled 'Significant Cybersecurity Incident' to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on the 16th (local time). According to SEC regulations, companies listed on the U.S. stock market must make a disclosure within four business days from the date the company determines a cybersecurity incident to be ‘serious.’ However, controversy arose because the disclosure was made only a considerable amount of time after Coupang became aware of the incident. In addition, Harold Rogers, Coupang's interim CEO, received strong criticism when he attended a National Assembly hearing on the 17th and said, "Although we are not subject to disclosure obligations, we made the disclosure in consideration of continued interest." In particular, social public anger is not expected to subside easily as it is pointed out that Coupang is going beyond the controversy over simply 'delayed disclosure' and is consistently avoiding legal responsibility rather than resolving the situation. Voices of criticism are also coming from the industry. In particular, it is evaluated as a clear contrast to the actions of other companies that were in similar situations in the past. Previously, Kakao quickly formed a damage support council when a fire in 2022 paralyzed related services and caused damage. SK Telecom also announced measures for victims, such as free SIM card replacements, when a customer information leak occurred. An industry official who requested anonymity explained, "There are stories inside and outside the industry that Coupang is holding meetings with domestic and foreign law firm officials in preparation for class action lawsuits in the U.S." and "It seems like they are putting more emphasis on legal action than on preparing measures for consumers." The government also drew its sword. On the 18th, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Science, ICT and Future Planning Bae Kyung-hoon submitted the 'Coupang Incident Pan-Ministry Response Direction' as an emergency agenda at the 2nd Science and Technology Ministerial Meeting held at the Seoul Government Complex and began emergency response by forming a task force (TF) team. This TF aims to go beyond simple accident resolution and prepare fundamental measures such as reforming the information security certification system and strengthening corporate responsibility. However, some are raising concerns about institutional limitations. An official in the security industry predicted, “For Coupang, defending against a U.S. lawsuit that applies punitive damages will be the top priority,” and added, “Despite pressure from the government, it is highly likely that it will remain passive until the end in announcing an apology or compensation plan that could serve as unfavorable evidence in a lawsuit.” Reporter Baek Jae-hyun (itbrian@newsis.com)[View full article] Consumers are angry at Coupang for avoiding responsibility... Class action lawsuit in full swing (link)

Accused of having an employment broker write a false notarized certificate, “The key is ‘employment fraud’… You need to look at a legitimate contract, not a threat.” A mother and son who were accused of threatening an employment broker by forcing him to write a notarization were cleared by the prosecution. The Ulsan District Prosecutors’ Office decided not to indict Mr. A and his mother, who were sent on charges of attempted extortion and coercion last October. Mr. A and others threatened employment broker B, claiming that they owed 300 million won as if they had no actual debt. He was accused of having someone prepare a false notarized deed as if he had a debt. Mr. B claimed, “Mr. A and others threatened to inform the company and family of the job request and demanded money, and I was unable to resist, so I was forced to prepare a false notarized certificate worth 300 million won.” Mr. A completely denied the charges. Mr. A countered, saying, “In the past, I paid 50 million won to Mr. B to ask for a job, but it didn’t work out, so I just asked for compensation for the damages.” He added, “Mr. B tortured me for 5 years in hopes of getting me a job at a famous manufacturer listed on the KOSPI, and the notarized deed was also written after Mr. B voluntarily proposed compensation for damages.” The prosecution decided not to file an indictment. The prosecution explained, “The essence of this case is that the complainant, Mr. B, committed employment fraud by deceiving clients and stealing money,” adding, “In fact, Mr. B has already been indicted on this charge.” He added, “Considering that Mr. B has written several handwritten confirmations that he will compensate a large amount of money in the past when he fails to find a job, the notarized deed is judged to be a legitimate contract in the nature of compensation for damages by agreement between the parties, not a threat.” Attorney Kim Geun-soo of Daeryun law firm, who represented Mr. “We were able to get rid of the unfair charges by proving that the notarized certificate was a fair compensation agreement for 5 years of damage,” he said. Reporter Kim Hee-guk kukie@kookje.co.kr[View full article] Mother and son accused of threatening employment broker 'not indicted' (link)