Press Coverage

Daeryun Law Firm joined hands with industry and private companies to innovate legal services and respond to policies in the era of artificial intelligence (AI). Ahead of the huge institutional change called the 'AI Basic Act' scheduled to be implemented in 2026, this is the first preemptive step to establish a cooperation system among legal experts, industries, and companies. Daeryun Law Firm announced on the 30th that it signed a business agreement (MOU) with the Korea Artificial Intelligence Association and Skyes Korea Co., Ltd. at its Seoul headquarters branch office on the 25th and established a triangular cooperation system for AI-based legal service innovation and policy response. The agreement ceremony was attended by key officials including CEO Dong-il Park and Lee-sun Choi of Daeryun Law Firm, Chairman Kim Hyun-cheol and Executive Vice Chairman Kim Geon-hoon of the Korea Artificial Intelligence Association, and Kim Hee-jin, CEO of Sky's Korea. This business agreement started from the fact that the use of artificial intelligence is spreading throughout the legal field. Recently, AI has become a means of increasing efficiency and strengthening expertise in legal document writing, contract analysis, etc., and the paradigm of legal services is also changing. The AI ​​Framework Act, scheduled to go into effect in January 2026, is expected to be a major institutional turning point for both industry and the legal profession. Close cooperation between associations, companies, and legal experts is required in the process of preparing subordinate laws. The parties to the agreement plan to build a convergence model encompassing industry, law, and policy based on their respective strengths. It is expected that the association's network of over 1,600 member companies, Sky's Korea's consulting and marketing capabilities, and Daeryun's legal service expertise will be combined to create a cooperative system that can support the entire AI ecosystem. The three organizations will work together to develop the ability to utilize AI as a core competitiveness of legal experts and to position AI as a means to complement and strengthen legal services, rather than a simple substitute. In addition, in line with the implementation of the Basic AI Act, we plan to jointly pursue legal and policy responses such as participation in regulatory sandboxes and legislative support. We will strengthen corporate-tailored AI introduction consulting and government business connection support and promote the spread of AI solutions by utilizing the association's member company network. At the same time, we provide advice on legal issues and regulatory issues that arise in the industrial field and continue to propose joint policies and improve regulations. “Through this agreement, the association will be able to work with legal experts and companies to respond to policies and regulations for the development of the AI industry,” said Kim Hyeon-cheol, president of the Artificial Intelligence Association. “The convergence of AI and legal services will create new global competitiveness. We will support industrial development together with the association and companies,” said Park Dong-il, CEO of Daeryun. “Reporter Jeong-won Hwang.” (jwhwang@mt.co.kr)[View full article] Money S - Daeryun, leading AI innovation... Establishment of a ‘triangular cooperation’ system with the Artificial Intelligence Association and Skyz (Go here) Point Daily - ‘Korea Artificial Intelligence Association, Daeryun and Skyz Korea MOU for cooperation in AI ecosystem development’ (link) Artificial Intelligence News - Korea Artificial Intelligence Association and Daeryun Law Firm provide one-stop legal and marketing solutions to AI companies (Go here)

[Anchor] Hyundai Engineering & Construction, a party to a negotiated contract, unilaterally abandoned the construction of Gadeok New Airport, but the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, which is in charge of the National Contract Act, stated that it cannot impose sanctions. Local civil society groups are protesting, saying that if Hyundai Engineering & Construction, which has caused significant disruption to national projects, is not designated as an unfair company, it will set a dangerous precedent that will shake the foundation of the National Contract Act. Reporter Min-wook Kim reports the news. [Reporter] Last May, Hyundai Engineering & Construction, the preferred bidder for a negotiated contract, unilaterally abandoned the construction of Gadeok New Airport. It unilaterally withdrew after requesting 108 months instead of the 84 months stated in the bidding notice, sparking controversy over violation of the National Contract Act. According to Article 27 of the National Contract Act, if a contract is not concluded or performed without a justifiable reason, the bidder's eligibility to participate in the bidding is restricted as an unfair company. In other words, whether there was a 'justifiable reason' is a legal matter. This is an issue. Regarding this, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, which is in charge of the National Contract Act, is of the position that legal sanctions are difficult to impose. The Ministry of Strategy and Finance stated that it is difficult to say that Hyundai Engineering & Construction has an obligation to conclude a contract because it has only submitted basic design documents and has not even signed a preliminary contract. On the other hand, civil society groups criticized that setting a precedent of not imposing penalties on companies that unilaterally give up on a negotiated contract during the process will have a serious negative impact on all future national projects. [Lee Ji-hoo/Chairman of Citizen Sympathy, Preparing for a Future Society] “I don’t understand the fact that the government cannot impose sanctions on Hyundai Engineering & Construction, which only pursues corporate profits.” The legal community believes that a comprehensive review of contracts and public offering guidelines is necessary, separate from the interpretation of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance's laws. [Park Dong-il/Attorney] (Article 27, Paragraph 1, Item 9, Article 27, Paragraph 1, Item 9 of the National Contract Act) provides that the company can be designated as an unfair business operator even in cases where it ‘refuses to conclude a contract without justifiable reasons,’ and it appears that sanctions against Hyundai Engineering & Construction will be determined through a closer review of the facts and a specific judgment.” As the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport announced that it would review whether to impose sanctions after receiving the response from the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, attention is focused on whether or not it will be finally designated as an unfair business operator. This is Min-wook Kim from KNN.[View full article] Why not sanction Hyundai Engineering & Construction, which is a ‘hindrance to national projects’? 'Spreading anger' (Shortcut)

The court on charges of 'quasi-fraud' intentionally targeting market gains to build a country house said, "Is schizophrenia recognized... but it is difficult to say that it is significantly cheaper" A man who was put on trial on charges of deceiving a schizophrenia patient and purchasing a land permit at a lower price than the market price was found not guilty. On the 28th of last month, the Changwon District Court found Mr. A, a man in his 60s, not guilty on charges of quasi-fraud. Mr. A was accused of intentionally approaching Mr. B, who suffered from schizophrenia, and purchasing the land permit at a lower price than the market price while acquiring the right to use a river in Miryang-si, Gyeongsangnam-do to build a country house in 2021. However, Mr. A denied the charge. At the time of the transaction, we had several conversations with Mr. B, and the intention is that Mr. B had reasonable judgment regarding the disposition of the rights. At the same time, Mr. A emphasized, “I could not understand at all that Mr. B was suffering from mental illness.” The court found Mr. A not guilty. The court explained, “According to the market valuation results, the standard market price of the license in question is 3,544,140 won, and the defendant purchased it at a price that is 15% lower than the market price,” adding, “It is difficult to say that the rights were acquired at a price so low that it constitutes quasi-fraud.” Kim Kyung-hwan, a lawyer at law firm Daeryun who represented Mr. “Intentionality is the issue,” he said. “The fact that Mr. B was diagnosed with schizophrenia does not allow us to conclude that the defendant was aware of Mr. B’s mental and physical disability at the time of signing the contract.” It was also stated, “Mr. B faithfully proved that he was in a state where he was able to distinguish between interests and interests at the time, such as proposing to transfer the permit to Mr. A first.”[View full article] “I deceived a patient with schizophrenia”... ‘Permit appraisal results’ that overturned the fraud case (link)

The aftermath of the Korean detention incident that occurred in the U.S. state of Georgia continues to linger. In particular, the situation appears to have entered a new phase as workers who were detained at the time came forward claiming 'human rights violations'. First of all, one of the biggest issues currently being raised is ‘arrest and detention without warrant.’ According to some media reports, there was no warrant at the time of arrest, and related documents were reportedly prepared only a few days after the workers were detained. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution fundamentally limits warrantless arrest and detention. Even in the case of immigration raids, arrests are not permitted based on simple estimates or vague suspicions; they must meet the standard of 'reasonable cause' and proceed in accordance with procedures guaranteed by the Constitution. The basis for the crackdown by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) appears to be Article 287 of the Federal Immigration Act (INA §287, 8 U.S.C. §1357). The provision does give immigration authorities the authority to investigate foreigners suspected of being in the country illegally and, in certain cases, to arrest them without a warrant. However, the premise is that there must be a ‘reasonable reason’. If arrests are made en masse without individual reasons in a large-scale crackdown, it will not be free from unconstitutional controversy as it conflicts with the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (prohibition of unreasonable searches and arrests). Therefore, detained workers may raise questions about the guarantee of these constitutional rights. The lack of procedural notice can also be pointed out as a problem. Foreigners detained during immigration procedures must receive a 'Notice to Appear' (NTA), which must clearly state the reasons for deportation. If the immigration authorities did not properly notify this, it is worth claiming a procedural defect. In addition, workers can use a legal tool called 'Motion to Suppress Evidence' to request that evidence obtained during illegal arrests be excluded from the court. In addition to simple detention procedures, workers can raise legal issues if they have ever been in a situation where their human rights are violated during the detention process. Immigration detention does not provide a public defender as in criminal cases, but the right to contact a lawyer is guaranteed under Article 292 of the Immigration Act. Therefore, if phone calls or interviews are restricted at the time of detention, this may constitute a violation of constitutional due process. In addition, issues such as overcrowding, poor hygiene, and lack of medical services in detention facilities can all be disputed as violations of due process under the 8th Amendment (prohibition of cruel or abnormal punishment) or Article 5 of the Constitution. In particular, if you are not provided with the medication you normally take, it is highly likely that it will be considered a serious violation of your rights. In fact, in 2020, when COVID-19 was spreading around the world, an incident occurred at the Mesa Bird Immigrant Detention Center in California, USA, where a Korean man in his 70s committed suicide ahead of deportation proceedings. At the time, the deceased suffered from diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease, and applied for bail due to the risk of COVID-19 infection, but the immigration court dismissed the request. Afterwards, the deceased's family filed a lawsuit against ICE and the immigration detention center operator for damages based on medical neglect and deliberate indifference. During the lawsuit, the issues that the man suffered from before his detention and whether he received treatment during his detention became an issue. However, the case did not reach a court ruling, and the case was closed through an agreement. In this situation, what many people are curious about is the 'possibility of filing a lawsuit.' The answer is 'possible'. In principle, U.S. courts allow lawsuits filed by foreign plaintiffs, and jurisdiction is recognized because the illegal acts occurred within the United States. However, there may be difficulties in securing evidence and proceeding with procedures due to living abroad, and burden of costs. Types that can be claimed include illegal detention, violation of due process, medical neglect, civil rights infringement, and illegal death. For this purpose, objective evidence is needed, such as documents at the time of detention, medical data, statements by the person and his or her colleagues, and consulate records. Also, in practice, you can appoint a professional lawyer in the United States, secure a statement, and submit a complaint to the competent federal court. Individual lawsuits are also possible, but in reality, class lawsuits may be a more efficient method. If a class lawsuit is filed, the likelihood of winning is also high. Just as the bereaved family filed a lawsuit for damages and received financial compensation in the case of the death of a man in his 70s mentioned above, the workers involved in the detention case in Georgia will also be able to receive legal judgment. Small and Medium Business Team[View full article] Aftermath of continued detention in Georgia... What are the issues in the damages lawsuit? (Shortcut)

Introducing the law firms’ Yellow Envelope Law Task Force. Daeryun Law Firm formed a task force (TF) last month to present practical countermeasures to corporate clients from the beginning of the implementation of the so-called Yellow Envelope Act (Amendment to Articles 2 and 3 of the Labor Union Act). We focus on providing comprehensive legal support encompassing customized personnel systems and overall labor-management relations to help corporate customers develop predictable management strategies and minimize unnecessary disputes. The TF is headed by In-Tae Bang (Training Institute 41st class), an attorney with extensive experience in human resources, labor, industrial accident consulting, and litigation representation. Attorney Jeong Sang-hyeok (bar exam taken 10 times) specializes in preventing corporate risks based on his experience as a member of the deliberation and investigation committee on workplace bullying, sexual harassment, and human rights violations. Attorney Chang-min Jeong (12 cases) has handled a number of corporate-related civil and industrial accident cases. Labor attorney Nam Seo-hye, who has provided labor consulting in the IT, service, manufacturing, distribution, and hospitals and clinics fields, and labor attorney Yang Hee-chun, who has been in charge of responding to Labor Office and Labor Relations Commission cases and workplace harassment investigations, are also adding their expertise to the TF. The TF seeks to achieve the two axes of minimizing corporate legal risks and stabilizing labor-management relations at the same time. To this end, we are preparing services such as △a response manual for each key issue of the Yellow Envelope Act △risk diagnosis and simulation for each company △establishing a response system in case of a dispute △operating an in-house training program. In particular, as the characteristics of companies differ depending on the industry and size, TF's biggest differentiation is that it provides customized solutions for companies rather than uniform advice. The TF holds regular seminars and webinars to inform corporate officials, including personnel and labor managers, of the main contents of the amendment and expected legal risks. Recently, a 'Yellow Envelope Law Response Strategy Seminar' was held at the Seoul Headquarters branch office. Regarding the on-site atmosphere felt during this process, Attorney Bang said, "When dealing with corporate clients, most of them feel a great deal of anxiety about 'what to prepare after the law goes into effect.'" He added, "In particular, the human resources and labor teams need a detailed roadmap as they need to prepare internal regulations, labor-management negotiation strategies, and risk response scenarios in line with changes in the system." We plan to predict and analyze cases and, based on this, build a response model that companies can use immediately in the field. We are also preparing practical guidelines and casebooks that companies can use on their own. Attorney Bang said, “We will cooperate with the government, academia, labor-management organizations, etc. to provide advice from an objective and balanced perspective,” and added, “We will do our best to ensure that the implementation of the Yellow Envelope Act becomes an opportunity for stable growth for companies.” Reporter Park Seon-woo (closely@bloter.net)[View full article] [Yellow Envelope Law Firm Restaurant] Daeryun, reduces risks and supports stabilization of labor-management relations (link)

British adult platform 'OnlyFans' receives a subscription fee for uploading explicit videos. There are concerns that teenagers who approached out of curiosity may be involved in crimes such as sexual exploitation. Domestically, this constitutes a violation of the Information and Communications Network Act, and the Korea Communications Standards Commission has issued only one correction order this year. # A, a woman in her 20s, earned about 320 million won by posting about 80 explicit content on OnlyFans to cover living expenses and tuition. Ms. A received a subscription fee of about $5 per month from about 1,000 subscribers, and she also had face-to-face sex with men she met through OnlyFans and received money approaching several million won per session.# While Ms. B, another woman in her 20s was continuously failing to find a job, at the suggestion of her boyfriend, she started filming nudity videos and sex videos and uploading them to OnlyFans. Mr. B, who received subscription fees equivalent to $15 per month from about 200 subscribers, uploaded about 30 videos and made a profit of about 100 million won. # Mr. C and D, a couple in their 30s, also received a subscription fee of 20,000 to 30,000 won per month on OnlyFans and uploaded about 30 sex videos of themselves, earning about 300 million won. OnlyFans is a British content platform that appeared in 2016 and grew rapidly during the pandemic, with 238.8 million users and more than 3.1 million creators as of early last year. Users can view the creator's photos, videos, and live broadcasts by paying a monthly subscription fee. It may seem similar to YouTube membership, Instagram membership, etc., but OnlyFans differs in that it allows sexual content. In OnlyFans, content creators take 80% of the profits. Overseas, celebrities are already earning hundreds of millions of won by posting videos on OnlyFans. Joining OnlyFans itself is not a crime, but creating and uploading pornographic material is against domestic law. For this reason, there is a high chance that you will fall into crime without even knowing it just by signing up for OnlyFans. The problem is that the existence of OnlyFans is becoming known not only to adults but also to teenagers. There are also concerns that people who access OnlyFans content out of curiosity may be exploited by sex offenders. One teenager said, “You can easily find 30-second preview bait videos on sites such as An official from the Korea Communications Standards Commission said, “OnlyFans is not a company with a branch in Korea, so it is difficult to impose separate sanctions on the business operator, and even if you talk to OnlyFans, there will be no response.” He added, “In reality, it may be faster to report the individuals who upload the videos to the police and subject them to criminal punishment.” In fact, according to data received by Maeil Business Newspaper from the Korea Communications Standards Commission, the committee has approved only one request for correction until the 23rd of this year. If illegal adult content is distributed on OnlyFans, the National Security Commission can check it and take action to prevent access within the country, but the number of requests for correction is decreasing every year. The National Security Commission approved 20 requests for correction in 2021, but only one request was made this year. It does not know anything about OnlyFans' domestic creators, number of users, or sales. The N-room prevention law obliges domestic telecommunication companies to block the distribution of illegal videos, but there is no way to apply this to overseas platforms such as OnlyFans. According to the Information and Communications Network Act, businesses with more than 100,000 daily average users in the three months immediately preceding the end of the previous year and businesses with sales of more than KRW 1 billion in the previous year must designate a person in charge of youth protection. However, OnlyFans cannot be regulated by applying this provision because its size has not been estimated. It is in a blind spot of regulation. It is difficult to receive protection even if a crime occurs. Mr. A appealed, saying, “I am suffering from severe mental pain because the video posted on OnlyFans was leaked illegally,” and “Stronger regulations are needed as victims continue to emerge.” Seonggeun Cho, an attorney at Daeryun Law Firm, said, “In the beginning, creators were given probation or leniency by the court, but as the OnlyFans business grows, it is changing to stronger collection and stronger punishment.” He added, “Mainly people in their 20s and 30s use videos to make money.” “There are cases of people being arrested for uploading videos for the purpose of making a living, so users need to be aware that it is a crime and be alert,” he said. Reporter Ji Hye-jin (ji.hyejin@mk.co.kr)[View full article] [Exclusive] ‘Relationship video with boyfriend’ uploaded to a secret site… A woman in her 20s who made hundreds of millions of dollars in profits, eventually (Go to the link)

Curious Story Y Episode 749 (broadcast on September 19, 2025) Mass detention of Koreans, why did they attack the factory?[View full article] [Y Episode 749 Summary] Georgia Factory Crackdown Operation | Short Y (Shortcut)

“Suspension will be imposed” due to abandonment of re-measurement… 1st trial: “The final decision lies with the driver” Appellate trial: “A driver who is not a legal expert, does not trust the police and ask for a re-measurement… It is an illegal matter” The court ruled that if the driver gave up the re-measurement because the police incorrectly informed him of the administrative disposition during the crackdown on drunk driving, the subsequent disposition should be considered invalid. On the 27th of last month, the 4-3rd Administrative Division of the Seoul High Court filed a lawsuit to cancel the car driver's license cancellation filed by A, a man in his 30s, against the Gyeonggi Province Northern Police Agency chief on the 27th of last month. The appeals court overturned the first trial judgment and ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Mr. A was caught in a drunk driving crackdown in 2023 and had his license revoked the following year. At the time of detection, the blood alcohol concentration was 0.033%, which is the level of license suspension, but the police canceled the license on the grounds that Mr. A had a history of drunk driving. Afterwards, Mr. A filed an administrative judgment, claiming that there was a problem with the measurement process. At the time, I was notified by the police that a relatively light ‘license suspension’ would be imposed, and this is why I did not have blood drawn. Mr. A argued that the cancellation was illegal because he had given up his right to request a re-measurement due to the police officer's provision of incorrect information. However, the police countered that the police officer who controlled the scene at the time clearly informed Mr. A that he had the right to re-measure, and that Mr. A then directly wrote in the relevant documents that he would give up the re-measurement. Furthermore, he emphasized that since the enforcement police officer has no obligation or responsibility to guide legal decisions, the final decision-making rests with Mr. A's own responsibility and judgment. The Central Administrative Appeals Commission, which reviewed the case, dismissed Mr. A's claim. Accordingly, Mr. A filed an administrative lawsuit. The first trial court ruled in favor of the police. The court said, “The police officer was merely notified for convenience that he was expected to receive administrative action equivalent to a suspension,” and added, “It is difficult to say that the police officer has a duty to investigate the driver’s drinking history and guide the expected action, and it cannot be said that the plaintiff was wrongly notified.” Mr. A, who was dissatisfied with this, immediately appealed, and the second trial court ruled in Mr. A’s favor. The appellate court said, “The purpose of establishing the alcohol re-testing procedure is to allow police officials to clearly inform drivers of the legal effects and to enable them to reasonably decide whether to request a re-testing,” and concluded, “If the police incorrectly notified the driver of the disposition and the driver gave up the right to request a re-testing, this is an illegal matter.” At the same time, “As a plaintiff who is not a legal expert, it seems that he decided not to request a re-testing in anticipation of a suspension as notified by the police.” He added, “It is reasonable to consider that the right to request a re-measurement has been waived based on the provision.” Attorney Shin Dong-hoon of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, “The suspension and revocation of a driver’s license has a large difference in the degree of disadvantage to the person disposing of it, so in cases like Mr. A who slightly exceed the blood alcohol concentration violation standard, this is important information in deciding on a re-measurement.” He added, “During the trial, the police provided incorrect information about important matters in deciding to exercise the right, and as a result, Mr. “We were able to overturn the first trial result by emphasizing that we had given up,” he explained. Reporter Kim Jong-cheol (jckim99@sportsseoul.com)[View full article] Cancellation of drunk driving license is ‘invalid’ if re-test is abandoned due to the police incorrectly informing of the disposition (Shortcut)

In recent years, the development of artificial intelligence (AI) has brought about great changes throughout our society. In particular, chatbots, generative AI, and legal search and analysis systems have emerged in the legal field, and various law firms, including the one I belong to, are providing self-developed artificial intelligence legal services. Concerns that not only lawyers but also professional occupations such as accountants and tax accountants may be replaced by AI are constantly being raised, and it is true that AI is greatly improving the work efficiency of lawyers through extensive case law research, drafting, law and legal analysis, etc. AI uses vast amounts of data. It is excellent for quickly analyzing, searching for precedents and laws, and deriving certain patterns. Compared to the days when lawyers had to manually flip through dozens of case books to find cases, AI can suggest similar precedents and strategies for resolving cases in a matter of seconds. In addition, it has already established itself as a powerful assistive tool for lawyers in drafting contracts, creating standardized forms, and repetitive legal review tasks. For this reason, some even predict that “simple legal documents will soon be written by AI, and lawyers will gradually become unnecessary.” However, can AI truly replace the role of human lawyers? The legal profession will not be unaffected by AI's counterattack, but the author's conclusion is that it will not be easy to replace human lawyers, given that they still have a role and meaning in existence. The core of a lawyer's role is 'dealing with people.' Among the many tasks a lawyer does, communicating with clients and understanding the client's injustice are more important than writing and submitting a perfect document. In fact, there are many clients who feel relieved and even mentally healed while talking to a lawyer about their unfairness and the frustration of not being able to tell anyone. There are actually lawsuits that AI cannot handle. Among the criminal cases I handled, there was a person who lost both the first and second trials and was considering an appeal. Although I did everything I could as a defense attorney, such as interrogating witnesses intensely in the first and second trials and requesting evidence from other organizations, I lost the case and did not recommend an appeal to my client. On the contrary, considering the Supreme Court precedent and the high dismissal rate of appeals, I honestly said that the chances of winning the case were very low. The first client decided not to file an appeal based on my opinion, but he called me dozens of times three days before the last day of filing the appeal and said he would fight until the end. In the end, the case was lost, but the client expressed his gratitude to the author, saying, “Thank you for fighting hard until the end. I am so relieved that I have now done everything I can.” If it were AI, would it have been able to carry out this incident? According to AI's analysis of vast amounts of information and patterns, this case is a case that cannot possibly be won, so wouldn't it have been prevented from even being attempted? Also, when carrying out a case, there are many cases where you feel that the case is a "living creature." Even if a strategy is drawn up and thorough preparation is made at the time of the initial appointment, there are many cases where completely unexpected facts are revealed, the client decides to withdraw, or the case progresses in a different direction, such as an adjustment. No two cases are completely identical, and even in similar cases, legal evaluations may vary depending on the relationship between the parties, background, etc., and the conclusion may differ from the perspective of fairness depending on the client's situation or the judgment of the court. Cases cannot be resolved through a simple combination of legal information or pattern analysis. Although the client's case is just one of a vast number of cases of the same pattern to AI, it is the only case important enough to swallow up the client's life, and as the lawyer in charge, it is a task to understand the client's fear and injustice, sympathize with it, and defend it with all one's might, so it is necessary to pour the energy transferred to the client beyond mechanical case performance. A lawyer is not a person who simply writes legal documents, but a person who sincerely accepts the client's wishes and solves the problem. It's a person. AI is good at text data, but because it does not fully understand the subtle nuances of human relationships and the meaning of the case between the parties, there is a fundamental limitation of not being able to carry out cases based on various human interactions. Therefore, the correct approach to AI is not “AI replaces lawyers,” but rather “AI assists lawyers.” AI can save lawyers’ time and reduce repetitive tasks, which allows lawyers to use more energy to formulate strategies, make value judgments, and more. You can focus on communicating with your clients. In other words, the development of AI may not lead to the disappearance of lawyers, but may serve as an opportunity to further strengthen their expertise.[View full article] [Monday Column] The role of a lawyer in the era of artificial intelligence (AI) (link)

The court has ruled that the state must compensate the families of victims who were victims for being involved in the National Press League during the Korean War. According to the legal community on the 22nd, the Seoul Central District Court on the 28th of last month awarded 167 million won in compensation to the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against the state by three people, including Mr. A, the bereaved family of the victims of the Goseong Press League. It was ruled that payment should be made. Mr. B, the victim of the incident and father of three, including Mr. A, was sacrificed by the police in the Goseong area of Gyeongsangnam-do around July and August 1950 for being involved in the National Press Association. Mr. A applied for investigation into this case in 2021 through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Through this, the Jinhwa Committee confirmed that Mr. B was a victim of the Goseong National Press Association incident last year. Mr. A and others demanded compensation from the government for illegal acts, but the government insisted on the statute of limitations, saying that the period for filing a claim for compensation had passed. The right to claim national compensation must be made within three years from the date the victim or his representative became aware of the damage or harm. However, the court did not accept the government's argument. The court refuted the government's argument and ruled in favor of Mr. A, saying, "If the Fire Protection Committee decides to investigate the truth regarding serious human rights violations or fabricated or suspected cases, the right to claim compensation arises from the date the notice of decision to determine the truth is served." It continued, "The deceased was killed by the defendant's police without going through due process," and "The defendant is responsible for compensating the bereaved family for the mental pain and alimony, etc." This was elaborated. Mr. A's representative, Se-ro Park, an attorney at the Daeryun Law Firm, explained, "Mr. A's side had to go through painful years without knowing the exact circumstances of Mr. B's death, such as the reason or date and time of his death. We were able to get a good result by emphasizing the fact that we were only able to identify the exact damage and perpetrator after receiving the decision to determine the truth." Reporter Kim Mi-ji (unknown@kyeonggi.com)[View full article] Court: “Government must compensate bereaved families for damage caused by Goseong Bodo League 75 years ago” (Shortcut)