Press Coverage

A man in his 40s who was charged with driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol was found not guilty. The court accepted the defendant's claim, pointing out the lack of specific evidence and the insufficiency of the investigation process. The Tongyeong branch of the Changwon District Court found Mr. A not guilty on charges of violating the Road Traffic Act (drunk driving) on the 11th of last month. Mr. A was on trial for driving about 40km from a road in Haenam-gun, Jeollanam-do to a nearby gas station with a blood alcohol level of 0.074% at around 8 p.m. on July 27 last year. It was handed over. At the time, the investigative agency charged him with drunk driving based on the fact that Mr. A spoke gibberish and stated that ‘someone else was driving.’ It was confirmed that Mr. A, who had previously been on vacation with his girlfriend and an acquaintance, had been drinking while having lunch that day. After finishing his meal, Mr. A called a designated driver and arrived at the accommodation. Mr. A woke up a few hours later, got into an argument with his girlfriend, and then got into a car. Arriving at a nearby gas station, Mr. A drank a bottle of soju in the car and fell asleep in the back seat of the car. Afterwards, the police were dispatched following a report from a gas station employee, and a breathalyzer test was conducted. At trial, Mr. A completely denied the charge of drunk driving. Mr. A emphasized, “After an argument with my girlfriend, I was upset, so I drove to the parking lot, drank alcohol and fell asleep in the car. Even though I wanted to explain that I was not drunk and driving, the police were only interested in testing for breath alcohol. I presented a bottle of soju that I had finished drinking, but the police ignored this.” The court decided that it could not completely rule out the possibility that Mr. A had been drinking in the car after stopping near a gas station. The court stated the reason for the acquittal, saying, “The defendant was sleeping in the back seat at the time of discovery, and there was no one who witnessed the drunk driving.” The police officer who dispatched to the scene did not take pictures of the state of the soju bottle at the actual scene or leave any records about it. It is difficult to conclude that the defendant was drunk driving based on the evidence presented alone.” Attorney Song Jae-baek of Daeryun Law Firm said, “Among the evidence records in this case, there are no records that can be used to estimate the time and amount of Mr. A’s drinking. “There was no evidence,” he explained. “If we apply the Widmark formula, we cannot rule out the possibility that Mr. A’s blood alcohol concentration was in an elevated state at the time of the breathalyzer test. If we back-estimate his blood alcohol concentration through this, it cannot be concluded that he exceeded the punishment standard of 0.03% at the time of driving.” He added, “The investigative agency rejected this as evidence missing even though Mr. A himself retrieved the empty soju bottle he had consumed.” He added, “In accordance with Article 76 and Article 172, Paragraph 1 of the National Police Agency’s criminal investigation rules, the police officer should have made efforts to secure evidence, such as writing a live investigation report, so he could have been found not guilty because Mr. A’s claims were consistent.” Digital Content Team[View full article] “I parked and drank in the car”… The reason why the 40-year-old was found not guilty on drunk driving charges (link)

A man in his 70s who was summarily indicted on charges of forcibly molesting a co-worker was cleared of the charges after requesting a formal trial. According to the legal community on the 8th, the Seoul Central District Court found Mr. A, who was indicted on charges of forcible molestation, not guilty on the 12th of last month. Mr. A was indicted on charges of touching his body while talking to his co-worker, Mr. B, in May of last year. Mr. B claimed that Mr. A molested him by touching parts of his body several times while urging him to sign documents. However, Mr. A denied all charges. They claimed that the security post designated as the location of the molestation was too narrow for two people to enter at the same time, and that the conversation was captured on CCTV. The prosecution concluded that the charges were acceptable and summarily indicted Mr. A. The court then issued a summary order to impose a fine of 5 million won on Mr. A, but Mr. A objected and requested a formal trial. The court ruled that Mr. B's statement was inconsistent and therefore unreliable. This is because Mr. B said to the police that Mr. A stroked his buttocks, but later claimed in court that he molested him by touching various parts of his body, including his buttocks. The court also ruled that even if Mr. A may have touched a part of his body while asking Mr. B for a signature, the possibility that this was a routine action without the intention of forcible molestation cannot be ruled out, and that it cannot be proven that Mr. A had the intention of forcible molestation even by combining the transcript and CCTV footage. Mr. A's legal representative Kim Jong-seo, a lawyer at Daeryun Law Firm, said, “In a sex crime case, if the victim's statement is the only evidence, it must be confirmed that the statement is significantly credible or is credible through other circumstantial evidence.” Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] Man in his 70s summarily indicted on charges of molesting a colleague... Not guilty in formal trial (Go here)

Recently, the U.S. commercial real estate market is undergoing a structural transition. Due to the prolonged high interest rate trend, the establishment of telecommuting, and the expansion of online consumption, commercial assets centered on offices and retail are recording high vacancy rates everywhere. In some urban areas, the vacancy rate is close to 30%, and the real estate value adjustment that began in earnest after the pandemic has not yet ended. As uncertainty in the commercial real estate market grows, residential real estate, which has the advantage of relatively stable cash flow and possession of real assets, is attracting attention as a new alternative. In fact, residential real estate in the United States can expect a rental yield of 7 to 9% per year depending on the region, and is strengthening its position as an investment asset that generates fixed cash flow even in a high interest rate environment. In particular, from the perspective of foreign investors, the United States is the world's largest domestic market and has a structure that clearly guarantees legal ownership, so it is evaluated as an investment destination that can pursue asset defense and profit generation at the same time. However, the essential key to investing in real estate in the United States is not simply whether you can buy it, but how to operate it and with what structure to manage taxes and risks. In particular, in the case of residential real estate, various maintenance costs such as property tax, education tax, insurance premium, management cost, and repair cost are continuously incurred. In addition, since the United States has multiple tax systems at the federal-state-local government level, investors must have a prior understanding of regional tax rates, tax reduction systems, and taxation methods. Various tax reductions and tax-saving strategies exist throughout the United States, and their application requirements also differ from state to state. In particular, in high-density residential areas in the eastern region (New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, etc.), tax reduction systems for actual residents or the elderly are relatively well developed. As such, the tax environment has a direct impact on the rate of return on investment, so it must be comprehensively approached from the perspective of the total cost of ownership as well as the simple sale price. These institutional characteristics can be understood in more detail by looking at New York State as an example. New York State is one of the representative states with a carefully designed tax reduction system for actual residents. First, the STAR (School Tax Relief) system is a program that provides education tax relief to actual owners whose annual income is less than $500,000. Additionally, if a senior citizen aged 65 or older resides in the property directly, they can receive a property tax reduction of up to 50% through the Senior Citizen Exemption system. In this way, when combined with a mid- to long-term holding strategy for actual residence or retirement purposes, the tax burden is significantly reduced. So, which areas in New York State are promising as practical investment destinations? A representative example is Syracuse. This city is a typical university city centered around the large campuses of Syracuse University and the State University of New York (SUNY), with a high proportion of out-of-state and overseas students and a lack of dormitory supply. As a result, rental demand for one-room or small apartments is steady, and the average monthly rent for a studio type (one-bedroom) is about $1,400 (about KRW 1.9 million). The sale price of this type of real estate is about $150,000 (about KRW 200 million), and it is a structure that can realize a rental yield of about 8-9% per year even without an actual owner. In particular, if certain requirements are met, it can be used as a complex asset management platform rather than a simple investment, as it can be used as a tax reduction through conversion to actual residence or as a tax saving strategy when gifting or inheritance after long-term holding. However, given that U.S. real estate is both a profitable asset and a high-risk contractual asset, professional legal and tax advice must be obtained first. Foreign investors are exposed to complex legal and institutional variables, such as application of FIRPTA (Foreign Real Estate Transfer Tax Act), possibility of disputes in lease contracts, state-specific tenant protection laws, and various litigation risks. A comprehensive risk management plan must be established, taking into account all possible risks not only during the sales process, but also at the holding and transfer stage. Ultimately, investing in U.S. real estate is not simply purchasing assets, but requires the same strategy and structure as operating an overseas business. Only by comprehensively analyzing all factors such as tax, law, profit, maintenance, and foreign exchange risk and preparing a response strategy can you prevent unexpected losses and achieve stable profit realization and asset defense at the same time. In an era where overseas asset allocation is more important than ever, structure is more important than information, and preparation is what surpasses expectations. When investing in residential real estate in the United States, only investors with legal safeguards can smile to the end. Small and Medium Business Team[View full article] [Contribution] U.S. residential real estate, how to achieve stability and profit at the same time (Shortcut)

Although it is rare, even in this era, there are families that have a ancestral temple, a graveyard, and a shrine and have continued the tradition of paying homage to their ancestors from generation to generation. Our family is one of them. My family is the head of the Seongsan family, and lives in a clan village in Hangae Village, Wolhang-myeon, Seongju-gun, Gyeongsangbuk-do. We have inherited ancestors, tombs, shrines, and ancestral rites from generation to generation, and have been serving our ancestors. Perhaps that is why the author has some experience representing the defendant in cases where the division of inherited property was requested. The ownership relationship of the mountain that enshrined the tomb of our ancestors can be broadly divided into two types. One is a method in which a clan, which is an unincorporated division, owns a mountain and entrusts the registered title to the clan representative or other trustworthy clan members. In principle, the Act on Registration of the Name of the Real Owner of Real Estate considers both the title trust agreement and the registration pursuant to this agreement invalid (Article 4, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the same Act), but with regard to real estate held by a clan, an exception provision is made to recognize the effect of a title trust contract in which the actual rights holder and the registered name are different (Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the same Act). In this case, the registered holder of the deceased, that is, the title trustee, is determined by a contract between the clan and the title trustee, and even if the registered holder dies without settling the title, the title trustee's heir automatically succeeds to the title trustee. In the case of a change in ownership based on a title trust agreement, no gift tax, transfer tax, or acquisition tax is imposed. In reality, disputes often arise when the heirs of the title trustee claim ownership of the deceased's property against the clan because the clan and the trustee do not clearly write a contract. In order to prevent such disputes and risks arising from them, it is important to have the title trust agreement notarized and keep it well. The other method is for the person who presides over the ancestral rites to inherit the deceased's assets, etc. The Civil Code stipulates in Article 1008-3 that ‘the person who presides over the ancestral rites shall inherit the ownership of Geumyang forest land within 1 jeongbo of a tomb, farmland as tomb soil within 600 pyeong, and the genealogy and tools.’ The meaning of this law is, first, that in the case of the death of the heir who presided over the ancestral rite, Geumyang forest land, grave soil, genealogy, and ancestral rites are excluded from the inherited property subject to division. In other words, the Geumyang forest, graveyard, genealogy, and ritual tools are inherited solely by the next person who presides over the ancestral rites, and the person who presides over the ancestral rites not only inherits the title but also has complete ownership. According to the 2008 Supreme Court unanimous decision, if there is no agreement between the co-heirs, the eldest son of the deceased becomes the ancestor, if the eldest son has already died, the eldest grandson, and if there is no son among the co-heirs, the eldest daughter of the deceased becomes the ancestor. What is important to note is that Article 1008-3 of the Civil Act only applies in cases of inheritance and does not apply in cases where the deceased disposed of Geumyang forest land, grave soil, genealogy, and tools in advance. According to Article 8, Paragraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, tax exemption applies up to 9,900 square meters for Geumyang forest land and 1,980 square meters for farmland with seedling soil. If the total asset value of Geumyang forest land and farmland with seedling soil exceeds 200 million won, tax exemption is applied only up to 200 million won. In reality, disputes often arise when other heirs claim that they will not recognize the mountain as Geumyang forest land and file a lawsuit to divide the inherited property, or when they question the status of the person who presided over the ancestral rite and file a lawsuit to confirm the status of the person who presided over the ancestral rite. If you want to inherit Geumyang Forest alone, you must take good care of the cemetery, the mountain that guards the cemetery, and especially the trees surrounding the cemetery. If the forest is cut down and some of the area is used for other purposes, the nature of Geumyang Forest will be lost. It would be best to familiarize yourself with these legal principles in advance to prevent family members from fighting over property, but if a dispute has already occurred, you should immediately contact a lawyer who specializes in inheritance and have the situation diagnosed. This is because inheritance issues are intertwined with inheritance tax reporting and payment deadlines, so the longer it is delayed, the more losses accumulate.[View full article] [Column] Can prenatal inheritance be divided into inherited property? (Shortcut)

Prosecutors “A dealer salesperson has no legal obligation to confirm the purpose of activation.” The manager of a mobile phone dealership who sold and activated a mobile phone that was used in a voice phishing crime was not indicted. According to the legal community on the 7th, the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office cleared Ms. A, a woman in her 40s, who was charged with violating the Telecommunications Business Act and aiding and abetting fraud in May. Ms. A used a mobile phone from January 2021 to August 2023. While working as a store manager at a dealership, he was accused of providing four mobile phones worth 7 million won to members of a voice phishing organization. The police conducted an investigation, determining that Mr. A had aided and abetted the crime by condoning the use of the cell phone despite knowing that it would be used for so-called ‘mobile phone gangster’ purposes. In response to this, Mr. A denied the charge, saying to the police, “I checked my ID according to the telecommunication company activation manual, and there was nothing particularly suspicious during the activation process.” He also claimed, “There are cases where expensive phones are sometimes used for business purposes,” in relation to the police investigation into the use of the latest, expensive terminals for business use. The prosecution, which forwarded the case, determined that Mr. A was not guilty. This is because the intention to collude between Mr. A and the voice phishing organization is not recognized, and the mobile phone dealer has no legal obligation to individually check the customer's activation purpose. Moreover, in the case of some mobile phones, it was confirmed that employees other than Mr. A had activated them. Based on the results of this investigation, the prosecution concluded that Mr. A was not aware of the crime. Attorney Park Jeong-ho of the Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, explained, “If the intent of aiding and abetting cannot be proven to the extent of excluding reasonable doubt, it must be judged for the benefit of the defendant.” He added, “Mr. A only performed his duties in accordance with the telecommunication company activation manual, had no knowledge of the crime of cell phone thievery, and did not receive compensation, so it was recognized that there was no intent.” Reporter Seohyun Lee (sunshine@kyeonggi.com)[View full article] I sold a cell phone, but I aided and abetted a voice phishing crime?... Prosecutors ‘not indict’ the store manager at the dealership (link)

The Korean Bar Association is an autonomous organization that protects legal ethics and an organization that represents the self-purification function of all lawyers. However, society is now asking the direction of the sword's point, whether the sword of disciplinary authority given for the original purpose of 'midnight' is really aimed at the public interest or whether it has degenerated into a means of control for the benefit of a specific group. According to Article 91 of the current Bar Act, the Bar Association autonomously carries out the entire process from request for disciplinary action to review and resolution, and the level of sanctions ranges from reprimand to permanent expulsion. Although it is formally notified to the Minister of Justice, institutional concerns are raised in that the actual authority is concentrated in the Bar Association, a private professional organization. The Bar Association's exclusive disciplinary authority is an unusual structure that runs counter to the principle of public responsibility compared to other professions. Doctors are subject to disciplinary action by the Doctors Disciplinary Committee under the Ministry of Health and Welfare, while accountants and tax accountants are subject to disciplinary action by administrative agencies such as the Financial Services Commission and the National Tax Service, respectively. In particular, it is in a contradictory structure in which private organizations themselves decide on the existence or non-existence of public qualifications, with only lawyers, and this has a logical flaw that undermines the general principle of the rule of law that ‘control over qualifications must be by public power.’ The problem is that these structural concerns are not just theoretical. The Korean Bar Association is a political organization led by a directly elected president, and there is an inherent risk that disciplinary power could be used as a means to suppress specific groups or differing opinions. In fact, the Bar Association actively exercised or announced its disciplinary authority in some cases, revealing the absence of an internal control mechanism. The symbolic incident in which this structural risk became a reality was the ‘Rotalk incident’. Based on its internal rules, the Korean Bar Association effectively forced a choice by imposing a fine of up to 3 million won on lawyers who use legal platforms. This was interpreted as a violation of internal regulations, but the media and civil society evaluated it as an abuse of disciplinary power beyond the scope of self-regulation and as an act of disrupting market order in competition in legitimate advertising and services. This issue is not limited to criticism within the legal community. This has already emerged as an important social agenda, with President Lee Jae-myung's pledge to establish an independent lawyer disciplinary body. Disciplinary action against lawyers is not simply a matter within the profession, but a public issue closely linked to constitutional values ​​such as freedom of expression, freedom to practice one's profession, and the public's right to know. Therefore, the improvement of the disciplinary structure must go beyond the level of internal control of the position and be approached as an issue of constitutional legitimacy and democratic responsibility surrounding public qualifications. Therefore, the current structure contains three fatal risks as follows: ① private organizations actually decide whether to deprive public qualifications, ② the criteria for that judgment are based on abstract concepts such as ‘maintaining dignity,’ ③ procedural transparency and external checks are insufficient. This means the possibility of arbitrary abuse of disciplinary power and This leads to the double danger of politicization of the organization. Now is the time to calmly seek institutional reform of the lawyer disciplinary system. It is necessary to disperse some of the disciplinary authority to independent external organizations or administrative agencies, have external personnel participate in the disciplinary committee, and comprehensive provisions such as ‘maintaining dignity’ be more clearly defined by law. Clarity of disciplinary grounds and procedures, predictability, and compliance with the principle of proportionality are most important. Advanced countries under the rule of law have already provided a clear answer to this. In the UK, the Legal Services Regulatory Agency (SRA) and the Bar Standards Board (BSB) are responsible for disciplinary action, and are clearly separated from the Bar Association. In the United States, the Supreme Court of each state also has disciplinary authority, and audits are conducted through independent investigative organizations. The American Bar Association (ABA) is only responsible for establishing codes of ethics and does not intervene in disciplinary action. This is the minimum institutional device to balance autonomy and fairness. Self-regulation is an important device for local organizations to maintain trust in a democratic society. However, the premise is fairness, transparency, and checks and responsibilities on authority. If a functional organization monopolizes the life and death rights of public officials and exercises that power arbitrarily, we end up tolerating “monitors who are not monitored” in the name of the law. If the Bar Association wants to be recognized as the authority of true autonomy, it must quickly step down from its position as a ‘monitor’ and show the decision to accept external checks.[View full article] [Contribution] Is the disciplinary right of the Bar Association under the name of ‘self-regulation’ okay as is? (Shortcut)

The court ruled that a truck owner who is not the owner of the vehicle on paper is also a claimant if he or she has been transferred the right to claim damages from the truck company. On the 4th of last month, the Eastern Branch of the Busan District Court ruled in favor of some of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit for damages filed by two truck owners, including A, against the Korea Freight Truck Transport Association. Person A purchased a cargo truck in 2023 and assigned it to a transportation company, and after that, driver B took over driving the vehicle. He was in charge. Later, in October of the same year, Mr. B suffered an accident while driving when he collided with a cargo vehicle running in the next lane. Accordingly, the two people demanded that the National Trucking and Transport Association, which signed a mutual aid contract for the cargo vehicle in question, pay compensation, including repair costs. However, the lawsuit began when the association refused. The association acknowledged some of the negligence of the truck driver but argued that Mr. A's claim should be dismissed. This is because Mr. A is only the owner of the accident vehicle, and the owner of the car registration certificate is a transportation company, so he cannot claim damages. Mr. A countered that he has the right to claim because he received all claims for damages related to the traffic accident from the transportation company. The court ruled in Mr. A's favor. The court said, "The plaintiff is in the position of a claimant for property damage because he received a claim for damages from the transportation company that owns the vehicle. The accident occurred when the defendant's vehicle suddenly changed direction and did not turn on the turn signal during this process." He continued, "It is reasonable to assume that the defendant's driver is primarily responsible for the accident," adding, "The defendant has an obligation to compensate for damages, including repair costs for the plaintiff's vehicle and compensation to the driver." He added. Attorney Kim Nak-hyeong of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, explained, "The Association claimed the unfairness of the claim by citing a precedent that says, 'The owner of the vehicle, who was entrusted externally by the company that owns the vehicle, acted on behalf of the owner company, and the legal effect belongs to the owner company.'" He added, "Considering this, during the trial process, we received the owner company's intention to transfer the claim for damages, and were able to neutralize the Association's claim." Reporter Kwon Byeong-seok (bsk730@fnnews.com)[View full article] Landlord who received transfer of claim for damages... Law “You have the right to file a claim” (Shortcut)

Advertising solutions and consulting on social media. Brokers providing personal rehabilitation consulting for debtors: “The risk to the debtor is high and it causes social harm.” “Get 90% forgiven through the personal rehabilitation system promoted by the government.” This is an advertising phrase that appears frequently on social media (SNS) such as YouTube and Instagram. Deceptive phrases that promise to reduce the loan burden, such as “Check the forgiveness amount even if you do not plan to revive immediately” or “How to reduce the loan amount by 90% through the government system,” are noticeable. Some advertisements even proudly state that they are the ‘National Debt Relief Support Center’ along with the Taegeuk symbol, the official logo of the Korean government. Thinking that it is a public institution, you go to the website through the link in the advertisement, and for some reason, this prompts you to consult a law firm. Recently, as the Lee Jae-myung administration's bad bank has emerged as a hot potato, personal rehabilitation advertisements are rampant on social media. We are actively promoting our service, saying we will provide ‘solution’ services not only to lawyers but also to those who are not qualified to represent personal rehabilitation. The problem is that solution advertisements that appear frequently recently encourage misuse of personal rehabilitation, claiming that they will ‘enable you to reduce any debt.’ This is a business that stimulates the curiosity of ‘Can I get rid of my debt?’ in a situation where the government is pursuing a bad bank policy of burning delinquent bonds en masse. The identities of those advertising solutions are diverse. Small and medium-sized law firms sometimes advertise directly, and sometimes loan brokers, loan companies, and illegal private finance companies are involved. Although each advertising entity is different, their goal is the same. The goal is to save money by increasing personal rehabilitation benefits. First, loan brokers and loan companies act as brokers. They lure debtors by offering solutions or consulting services. Brokers are responsible for teaching people how to meet personal rehabilitation standards and connecting them to lawyers they have collaborated with. Brokers receive fees from lawyers during this process. There are several problems with this solution sales practice. First of all, it may be illegal. It is a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act for people without a lawyer's license to perform some debt settlement agency work and hand over cases to lawyers in exchange for a fee. Moreover, solutions using brokers also bring disadvantages to the debtor. Typically, the cost of hiring a personal rehabilitation lawyer is 2 to 5 million won. Of this, the broker takes about 20-30% as a commission. From the lawyer's perspective, he or she receives more money from the debtor because he or she has to pay a broker's fee. Above all, the consulting activities of solution brokers pose unexpected risks to the debtor. Brokers whisper that they will negotiate various conditions for the debtor and allow him/her to undergo debt restructuring. They encourage you to lie about how the loan money will be used or to hide some supporting documents. However, according to legal experts, even if you commit fraud after listening to your broker, there is a high possibility that you will be caught during the personal rehabilitation process. If such misconduct is discovered, the responsibility lies entirely with the debtor. Beyond the failure of personal rehabilitation, you can even be accused of deceiving the court. Jeong Il-woo, a responsible attorney at Daeryun Law Firm, said, “Recently, there has been a flood of incorrect information related to personal rehabilitation,” and “the safest way is for the debtor to directly seek out an insolvency lawyer and receive consultation.” In addition, solution sales that occur in the shadows are also harmful to our society. This is because it promotes moral hazard, which means ‘you don’t have to repay the loan.’ In addition, misuse of personal rehabilitation increases social costs. The purpose of the system, which should only be received by those who absolutely need it, is being polluted. Jeong-won Yoon, head of the Personal Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Support Center at the Korea Legal Aid Corporation, said, “You should not use personal rehabilitation just because you do not want to repay the money right away,” and pointed out, “If personal rehabilitation that is not absolutely necessary increases, it eats up public resources and increases social costs.” Reporter Kim Tae-ho (teo@chosunbiz.com)[View full article] [Financial Focus] “Don’t pay off your debt”… As bad banks emerged, illegal personal rehabilitation sales continued on social media (click here)

The process of deciding to divorce is painful for everyone. The first question many people ask when considering divorce is, 'Which method should I choose between divorce by agreement or divorce by trial?' The type of divorce goes beyond simple procedural differences and varies depending on whether the parties agree or not and the degree of conflict. Therefore, if you are considering divorce, it is necessary to clearly understand the difference between the two systems. First, if an agreement on divorce is possible between the couple, divorce by agreement is the simplest and fastest method. Rather than examining the cause, such as the reason for the divorce between the parties, the court is closer to checking whether procedural requirements have been met. However, it is not an easy task to end with a consensus on divorce. If specific agreements such as alimony, property division, custody, and child support are not clarified, many cases lead to further disputes. Conversely, if one party does not agree to divorce, or if it is difficult to reach agreement on major issues such as custody and property division, the judicial divorce process must be initiated. For judicial divorce, there must be a civil law cause (e.g., spouse's misconduct, abandonment, grossly unfair treatment, etc.), and the burden of proof lies with the party who filed the lawsuit. This has the disadvantage of being time consuming and costly, but it is also a means of recovering legitimate rights, such as uncovering the other party's hidden assets or claiming compensation by acknowledging fault. In addition, there are many cases where disputes are resolved relatively quickly through mediation. .Divorce is a new starting point for a better life. Therefore, divorce methods and procedures must be carefully selected based on legal strategies and interests, not just emotions. In fact, there is an increasing number of cases where lawsuits are filed again over custody or property division after a divorce by mutual consent. This stems from making a hasty and emotional decision without sufficient legal advice at the time of divorce. If you are contemplating divorce, it is important to carefully consider the method that suits your situation rather than hastily deciding on the procedure. In this process, it may be helpful to consult expert advice to ensure objective perspectives and legal standards.[View full article] [Expert Contribution] How should I choose between divorce by agreement and divorce by trial? (Shortcut)

The court ruled that the decision to not allow the establishment of a livestock farm due to a group of residents' complaints was unfair. According to the legal community on the 2nd, the first administrative department of the Gwangju District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by a man in his 50s, Mr. A, in his 50s, against Goheung-gun, Jeollanam-do, to cancel the construction permit injunction on the 19th of last month. Mr. A submitted an application for a building permit to build a livestock farm to the county in 2023. He was in charge of prior review work in this regard. The county planning subcommittee conveyed its opinion to Mr. A that there were no special problems with the construction of the livestock farm. However, the committee suddenly rejected the motion, saying that an amicable solution was needed due to the series of complaints from nearby residents. Afterwards, the county also disallowed permission on the grounds of 'concerns about damage to the residential and agricultural environment of local residents due to environmental pollution'. Accordingly, Mr. A filed an objection, but it was dismissed, and he eventually filed an administrative lawsuit. During the trial, Mr. A submitted the application. It was argued that it was illegal to restrict construction based solely on collective complaints, even though sufficient review of the environmental pollution prevention measures listed had not been conducted. The court ruled in Mr. A's favor. The court said, "The defendant first presented the fact that the subcommittee's deliberation result was a rejection, and then abstractly presented the objections of neighboring village residents to the construction of a livestock house and the reasons under the national land planning law." It said, "According to the results of the deliberation, the defendant appears to have taken a disposition mainly based on civil complaints that have no basis in the law based on the results of the deliberation." It continued, "The livestock building is far enough away from the village, and the access road does not pass through the village, so the defendant “It appears that the claimed risk of damage is not likely to be significant,” he said. “The defendant does not appear to have sufficiently reviewed the feasibility of the preventive measures submitted by the plaintiff.” Attorney Kim Jun-seong of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, “According to the National Land Planning Act, even if there is a risk of environmental pollution due to development activities, development can be permitted if prevention is possible and attached as a condition of permission.” While Mr. A explained in detail specific evidence and preventive measures to prevent environmental pollution, “The court appears to have accepted Mr. A’s request because the military only vaguely repeated claims to the effect that there would be concerns about environmental pollution,” he explained. Jeong Eui-jin (jej88@ikbc.co.kr)[View full article] Due to group complaints from residents, the establishment of livestock farms is not permitted.. “Illegal disposition” (Shortcut)