Press Coverage

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)

The owner of a skin care company in his 30s in Busan was investigated by the police following a report that he was illegally performing skin procedures that only medical professionals can do, but was cleared of charges due to insufficient evidence. According to the legal community on the 2nd, the Busan Yeonje Police Station decided not to forward Mr. A, in his 30s, who was booked on charges of violating the medical law in May. Mr. A has been running a skin care business since September of last year and was accused of performing skin treatments on customers using a device with a 0.2 mm long needle. Mr. A was investigated by the district office and police in February of this year when someone reported to the district office that “the store run by Mr. A is performing skin treatments that only medical professionals can perform and is advertising this on social media.” Under the current law, skin treatments are classified as medical practices, and practicing medicine without a license is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to 50 million won. In the police investigation, Mr. “It was concluded that it was not illegal,” he claimed. As a result of the investigation, the police also determined that the device used by Mr. A could not be determined to be medical, so it could not be considered that he used this device to practice medicine. Mr. A's legal representative, Attorney Son Yun-jeong of the Daeryun Law Firm, said, "Not only as a result of the district office crackdown, but also the public health center that applies the medical law did not conduct an on-site crackdown because they judged that the device used by Mr. A was not a medical device. Also, the same type of device as the device used by Mr. A is classified as a home skin care device and can be purchased by anyone online, and such data was submitted. “He was able to be cleared of charges due to insufficient evidence,” he explained. Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] Skin care company reported for illegal medical practice cleared of charges (Click here)

Providing an integrated solution to strengthen the corporate compliance management system and improve ESG response capabilitiesCEO Kim Kuk-il said, “We will assist in compliance and sustainable operation based on our corporate advisory experience.” We also signed a strategic MOU with the Korea Medical Foundation to preemptively respond to medical legal disputes. Daeryun Law Firm signed an MOU with the Korea Compliance Agency (Korea Compliance Agency) and ESGI (Co., Ltd.) and announced on the 2nd that it will establish a fair trade autonomous compliance program (CP rating) and an integrated ESG response system for companies. It was announced. The signing ceremony held at the Daeryun Seoul headquarters branch office on the 30th of last month was attended by Daeryun CEO Kim Kuk-il, lawyer Son Gye-jun, Korea Compliance Agency Director Lee Jeong-myeong, and ESGI CEO Yong Seok-gwang. The Korea Compliance Agency is a certification body that conducts certification reviews and trains auditor qualifications for corporate anti-corruption, compliance, etc. based on the certification review of management systems established by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). In addition, ESGI is an integrated service company that provides professional knowledge and solutions for realizing ESG management, including corporate ESG consulting, CSDD consulting, and fair trade CP consulting. Through this agreement, Daeryun plans to build an integrated solution to strengthen the company's compliance management system and enhance ESG response capabilities. Specifically, ▲Advice on development of compliance and ethics training programs for executives and employees ▲Advice on sustainable management reports and certification response ▲Advice on legal risks related to ESG management We plan to provide corporate-tailored support services, such as providing preliminary inspections and response manuals. Lee Jeong-myeong, director of the Korea Compliance Agency, said, "Through this MOU, corporate customers will be able to receive a more sophisticated compliance system and practical training at once," and emphasized, "Our risk prevention and response capabilities in the actual operation process will be greatly strengthened." “We expect that cooperation with Daeryun will be the starting point,” said Kim Kuk-il, CEO of Daeryun. “ESG and compliance management are now essential, not optional, when it comes to running a company.” He added, “Based on Daeryun’s corporate advisory experience, we will actively support companies to solve the two challenges of compliance and sustainability at the same time.” Meanwhile, Daeryun operates a corporate legal group and provides support to companies such as establishing ethical management policies, operating compliance programs, internal investigations, and responding to government regulations. We provide general advice on ethical management.[View full article] Sejeong Ilbo - Daeryun Law Firm signs MOU with Korea Compliance Agency and ESGI (Click here) Venture Square - Daeryun Law Firm signs MOU with Korea Compliance Agency and ESGI (Click here) Tax Ilbo - Daeryun signs MOU with Korea Compliance Agency and ESGI (Click here)

[Interview] Attorney Bang In-tae, specializing in labor law at Daeryun Law Firm, Artificial intelligence (AI) and automation technology are rapidly changing the entire industry, from manufacturing to the service industry, but the laws and systems that should protect workers' rights are not keeping up with the pace of technological development. There are criticisms that workers are being left in a legal blind spot in the employment ecosystem transformed by AI. The restructuring of the labor market has already begun. According to the Korea Employment Information Service's 'Digital-based technological innovation and changes in human resource demand structure' report, 6 out of 10 jobs, including facilities and production, that are greatly affected by automation were analyzed to have a high possibility of technological substitution. Technological developments are threatening existing jobs and creating new employment forms. The problem is that the current labor law does not properly reflect these changes. Attorney Bang In-tae of Daeryun Law Firm said, "Our labor laws are still based on 'old-style jobs' and are unable to keep up with changes," and predicted, "As repetitive tasks are automated with AI technology, companies will process work through platforms, and the number of self-employed workers or short-term contract workers will increase further." He pointed out that “protection is insufficient.” The argument that the legal concept of ‘worker’ should be expanded as a solution to this is gaining strength. Attorney Bang added, "Voices are growing that platform workers and specially employed workers should be included in social security systems such as industrial accident insurance and unemployment benefits," and added, "Government discussions to strengthen workers' right to participate in management are also actively taking place to reduce inequality caused by technological change." Overseas countries, including the U.S., are introducing AI-related personnel regulations one after another. Overseas countries, including the U.S., which began digital transformation ahead of us, are already taking institutional responses. California this year restricted AI from replacing teachers, and New York introduced regulations on AI-based publications. States such as California, New York, and Illinois prohibit discrimination that may occur when companies use AI in decision-making, such as hiring or personnel evaluation. Attorney Bang In-tae said, "New York State has even introduced a system that requires companies to disclose if mass layoffs are linked to the introduction of AI," and added, "There is also a need for Korea to require companies to notify and disclose to stakeholders how AI has affected the process from hiring to firing." He continued, "The key to labor policy in the AI era is 'balance.'" He argued, “There is an urgent need to establish legal and institutional measures to protect workers’ rights without hindering technological innovation.” Specific measures included ▲establishing a retraining and job change support system for occupations with a high possibility of being replaced by AI ▲expanding livelihood support for the unemployed through revision of the Employment Insurance Act and mandating customized job training ▲reviewing the application of social insurance (employment/industrial accident) and minimum wage system for non-traditional employment types. In order to alleviate the burden on companies, he believed that it was necessary to review ▲converting the seniority-based wage system to one centered on job and performance ▲introducing an hourly wage system linked to the flexible work system. Lastly, he emphasized, "In the coming AI era, how successfully we protect workers' rights and reform into a sustainable wage system will determine national competitiveness." Reporter Hwang Jeong-won (jwhwang@mt.co.kr)[View full article] Jobs disappearing due to AI... The United States is strengthening 'worker protection', but what about Korea? (Shortcut)

Last April, a case I handled while working as a litigation aid lawyer at the Seoul High Court resulted in the Constitutional Court ruling that it was unconstitutional. Considering that the Constitutional Court's decision rate of unconstitutionality or non-constitutionality is only about 4.2% of all cases, this decision is even more noteworthy. The origin of the problem was Article 13 of the ‘Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of National Merit, etc.’ (hereinafter referred to as the National Meritorious Persons Act), which contains information on the order of payment of compensation to the bereaved families of persons of national merit. This provision stipulates that when there are two or more survivors of the same rank and there is no agreement between the survivors, compensation is to be paid first to 'the person who mainly supported the person of merit.' However, if even this requirement is not met, compensation is paid to an ‘older person (elderly person)’ in accordance with Article 13, Paragraph 2, Item 3. This 'senior priority' clause was the key issue in the case. The client who was entrusted with the case was the second daughter of a person of national merit. Although she faithfully supported her father for many years, she was unable to reach an agreement with her other siblings about receiving compensation. It was difficult to objectively prove past support. In the end, the client was refused compensation according to the 'senior priority' rule and filed a lawsuit. However, the first trial result was a loss. Afterwards, the client came to see me and we went to the appeal trial together, but the claim was dismissed for the same reason. Believing that there was a problem with the provisions of the law itself, the author persuaded his client to file an appeal with the Supreme Court and request a review of the law's constitutionality. The Constitutional Court ruled that determining the recipient of compensation solely based on a coincidental circumstance such as 'age' violates the principle of equality. This makes it clear that it is against the concept of justice to not be paid compensation just because you are not an elder, even if you have fulfilled your actual duty of support. Due to the nature of constitutional trial cases, citation decisions are extremely rare, and even if a case is won, there are many cases in which there is no direct economic benefit. Nevertheless, the reason why I did not give up on this case until the end was because I believed that it would be an important opportunity to correct the unreasonable system of our society beyond the relief of individual rights. Of course, this decision is another beginning. We hope that this decision will be a turning point in presenting fair and just standards to all bereaved families who may find themselves in similar situations in the future. Small Business Team[View full article] ‘Priority to seniors’ in compensation for people of national merit is unconstitutional… What issues does the lawyer tell you about? (Shortcut)

The money sent turned out to be voice phishing damage... ‘Account suspension’ proceeding court: “It is difficult to hold the buyer responsible for verifying his/her identity and involvement in a crime” The court ruled that if there are no special circumstances in the process of receiving money, the creditor does not owe unjust enrichment or compensation for damages. According to the legal community on the 1st, A, a woman in her 60s, sold foreign currency twice on a second-hand trading platform in 2023 and 2024 and received about 18 million won. Shortly after, Ms. A received about 18 million won. This is because the money Mr. A received through the transaction was voice phishing damage. Mr. A claimed that he only received fair compensation for the transaction and did not participate in the crime, and that he also suffered damages when the debt extinction process began. On the 17th of last month, Mr. B and two others countered that Mr. A was also responsible for a large amount of money. “I did not closely look into the personal information of the trader and remitter while selling foreign currency,” he said, emphasizing that Mr. A was either intentional or grossly negligent in his illegal activities. The Seoul Western District Court, which heard the case, ruled in favor of Mr. A, saying, “It is difficult to say that there is a liability for return of unjust enrichment and compensation for damages to the defendants.” The court said, “It is difficult to say that there were any suspicious circumstances enough to create an obligation for the plaintiff to confirm the identity of the buyer of foreign currency, and that the money remitted was related to a crime.” It was ruled that the plaintiff cannot be held at fault for not knowing whether it was the source of the money.” In this regard, lawyer Park Jeong-gyu of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, “The unjust enrichment system considers the creditor’s acquisition to have a legal cause if there are no special circumstances such as malice or gross negligence in the process of receiving the money.” He added, “It is emphasized that he did not participate in the crime based on the fact that he did not separately check the other party’s personal information or the name of the depositor in the used transaction environment. “We were able to obtain a favorable ruling,” he explained. Reporter Kim Mi-ji (unknown@kyeonggi.com)[View full article] The money transferred was ‘phishing damage money’… Court: “There is no liability for unjust enrichment or damages” (Shortcut)

‘Severely injured’ after being run over by a vehicle… Bus stops after collision, court says, “The plaintiff is more at fault” A driver who was seriously injured while pushing a vehicle with the engine turned off at a gas charging station filed a lawsuit for damages against the owner of the charging station, but lost. The Masan branch of the Changwon District Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim in a lawsuit for damages filed by a man in his 30s, Mr. A, against the owner of the gas charging station, Mr. B, last May. Mr. A was seriously injured while visiting a gas charging station in May of last year. The accident occurred while he was pushing a charging station employee to move a vehicle that was not starting. At the time, the exit from the charging station was on a downhill road, and as the vehicle accelerated, it started heading towards the road, and Mr. A tried to block it late, but it was not enough. In the end, the vehicle stopped only after passing Mr. A, who had fallen, and collided with a bus traveling on the road. Mr. A claimed that the charging station was responsible. They said that they requested to move the vehicle despite knowing that it was a dangerous downhill terrain and did not take proper safety measures. Mr. B refuted this claim. The employee countered that he did not directly order the vehicle to move, and that the accident occurred due to Mr. A's voluntary judgment. The court found that Mr. B was not negligent. The court ruled, “There is room to believe that the charging station staff did not provide sufficient guidance on the slope or risk factors at the site, but the direct cause of the accident is that Mr. A was run over by the vehicle while trying to stop the accelerating vehicle with manpower.” He added, “It is difficult to say that the employee could have predicted the accident, and there is no causal relationship sufficient to recognize legal responsibility between the employee’s actions and the accident.” Attorney Jong-Hoon Han of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. B, said “For liability to compensate for damages to be recognized, there must be a sufficient connection between the wrongful act and the resulting damage,” he said. “By comprehensively considering the likelihood of an accident occurring, the level of employee negligence, and the severity of the damage, etc., the plaintiff’s claim could have been dismissed.” Digital Content Team[View full article] Vehicle stopped at a charging station... Result of ‘major accident’ lawsuit after pushing car with employee (link)

With the launch of the new government, major changes were predicted in the field of fair trade. As President Lee Jae-myung ordered the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) to increase its workforce immediately after taking office, attention is focused on expanding the role of the Fair Trade Commission. The background to this order is the accumulated suffering of small business owners. This is because the burden has increased as large platform companies such as e-commerce and delivery apps continue to impose excessive fees and unfair transaction practices. This is not the first time that voices for regulation surrounding online platforms have emerged. The Small Business Association and the People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy have already been demanding the establishment of a fair trading order by demanding the enactment of the ‘Online Platform Fairness Act (hereinafter referred to as the Online Platform Act)’ since 2020. The ONPL Act contains regulations on abuse of market power, unfair trade, and monopoly issues by platform companies. Previously, President Lee also pledged to enact the ONPL Act, emphasizing that he would protect stores and prevent monopoly and abuse of monopolistic positions by large platforms at home and abroad. In fact, according to the Fair Trade Commission’s ‘2024 Statistical Yearbook’ last year, the number of cases handled by the Fair Trade Commission was a total of 2,496. Among these, there were 124 cases in which fines were imposed, and the total fine amount was 422.7 billion won. Looking at the types of legal violations, unfair trade practices accounted for the largest proportion at KRW 212.3 billion, followed by unfair collaborative practices (KRW 170.1 billion). Accordingly, it is expected that large-scale investigations related to platform unfair trade practices will continue. However, there is currently no law that directly applies to online platforms, so as long as the Fair Trade Act has the nature of a general law, it is expected to be governed by the Fair Trade Act until the ONPL Act is enacted. In general, the Fair Trade Commission can conduct necessary investigations ex officio when it determines that there is a suspicion of violating the provisions of the Fair Trade Act. In addition, anyone can report violations of the law, and reports can be submitted in a variety of ways, such as through the official website or by visiting the Fair Trade Commission's civil affairs office. Usually, when a violation of the law is discovered, a public official (examiner) is appointed to review it and an investigation is conducted. At the case investigation/examination stage, if necessary, ① the attendance and hearing of the opinions of the parties, stakeholders, or witnesses, ② the designation of an appraiser and commission of an appraisal, ③ the business operator, business organization, or executive/employee may be ordered to report on costs and management status and submit other necessary data or items. Here, the Fair Trade Commission's investigation is legally an administrative investigation and has the nature of a discretionary investigation, but in reality, it carries with it a certain degree of coercion. Therefore, in case of refusal or obstruction of the investigation, fines, enforcement fines, and criminal penalties may be imposed. The Fair Trade Commission's deliberation procedures are based on the principle of ex officio structure. The hearing is based on an oral hearing, and if necessary, a written hearing is conducted. Once the deliberation process for the case is completed, agreement and resolution procedures among the meeting members proceed. In addition, if you are dissatisfied with the Fair Trade Commission's disposition, you can go through procedures such as the right to request access to data, an objection, and an appeal. Attorney Jeong Woo-young of Daeryun Law Firm said, "If you are the subject of an investigation by the Fair Trade Commission due to unfair trade practices, etc., you should not arbitrarily delete or hide data. It is good to show cooperation in the investigation. You can receive assistance from a lawyer during the investigation process, so we recommend that you actively utilize it. In particular, Fair Trade Commission cases proceed similarly to criminal cases. “Due to the nature of fair trade-related law, it is a specialized and specialized area, so it is better to submit an opinion through a lawyer,” he advised. He continued, “If you are a reporter, you must secure data that can confirm the violation of the law.” He added, “It may be difficult to collect related data, so it is important to find a legal expert to proceed with the investigation and mediation process.” Gayoung Jin, lawissue reporter (news@lawissue.co.kr)[View full article] In the 'online platform era', regulations such as abuse of fees begin... How do you respond to reports of unfair transactions? (Shortcut)

The Korean legal market still operates centered on legal professionals, not customers.. This is not a simple institutional problem, but the result of authoritarian thinking and structural closure underlying legal services in general.. I believe that we must dismantle this old structure and create a consumer-centered open legal market that realizes information equality..Looking back through history, power has always been maintained by controlling information.. In medieval Europe, the Bible was written only in Latin and its contents were unknown to commoners.. Information was power, and the clergy monopolized that power.. 15Gutenberg's popularization of printing press and translation of the Bible into native languages ​​was a decisive opportunity to break down that monopoly.. The liberation of information meant a shift in power, which led to the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution., Furthermore, it led to the spread of democracy..The same goes for the law.. The law is a tool to protect the rights of the people, but if interpretation and access are monopolized by a specific class, the law becomes a means of domination.. The legal market, where access to information is blocked, is nothing more than a barrier to vested interests that reign over the rights of the people..One of the main channels through which people today can access legal services is ‘advertisement’all. Advertising is not just a commercial activity. It is a space of constitutional rights that allows lawyers to freely express their expertise and services and helps the public compare and evaluate them and make rational choices.. in other words, Advertising is a lawyer's freedom of expression and, It is a democratic device that simultaneously implements the people’s right to know..The lawyer market of the past was never an open market.. Advertising was considered taboo, and hiring a lawyer depended on informal routes such as transfers, brokers, and acquaintances.. Consumers do not receive sufficient information, I had to choose a lawyer based only on limited channels and reputation.. The resulting excessive costs and information gap were passed on to the people, and legal services became distant from the people..It has to change now.. Citizens have the right to choose a lawyer. And as a service provider, lawyers must be guaranteed the opportunity to freely publicize the work capabilities and expertise they provide.. In particular, advertising autonomy is urgently needed for small and new lawyers who lack capital and recognition.. They have their own special strengths, Locality and expertise, Advertising is the only way to appeal your philosophy and approach to the market.. If advertising is regulated, all expressions will be standardized.. As a result, consumers lose real choice in choosing the right lawyer for them, and lawyers are unable to communicate their differences to the market.. Ultimately, this is disadvantageous to consumers., It results in entrenching a non-competitive legal market structure..I can agree to some extent with the point that advertising should not be solely centered on capital.. If a specific advertising structure determines exposure and acceptance opportunities depending on financial power, this may cause information bias.. However, these concerns ‘Format and Structure’This is a problem that can be sufficiently improved through technical and policy adjustments.. That cannot be a justifiable reason to control advertising itself or suppress expression itself.. ‘Protect citizens from information’The attitude of restricting advertising under the pretext of isolating the public from information is in reality. This is a dangerous idea that assumes that legal consumers are unable to make their own decisions and underestimates the public's ability to make decisions.. Advertising regulations should always be minimal and start from the premise of freedom of expression and the right to know..These standards that threaten freedom of expression are still in effect in reality.. Recently, Daeryun Law Firm, to which the author belongs, was notified of an application for disciplinary action by the Korean Bar Association due to a statement posted on the company's website.. The part in question was the following vision declaration:.“Daeryun Law Firm's ultimate goal is to become the world's best law firm..”This sentence was merely a declaration that revealed the company's philosophy and goals.. There was no intention to promote a specific service., There was no purpose to induce acceptance.. Nevertheless ‘best’Disciplinary proceedings were initiated simply because the expression was included..Is this really an advertisement?? Is there any objective evidence that consumers are directly and specifically influenced by this sentence to the point of contacting a law firm?? If even sentences expressing the company's vision and direction are subject to censorship,, Lawyers can no longer speak freely. This is not regulation of advertising, but control of expression itself.. This promotes information asymmetry and, A distorted market has been created in which lawyers are selected based on personal connections, causing repeated opaque transactions such as brokerage.. This is the harm caused by a structure that seeks to maintain control..The means to fundamentally change this structure is the liberalization of advertising.. Through advertising, lawyers can transparently convey their philosophy and expertise, and the public can compare and choose for themselves.. This is the healthiest and most legal way to replace courtesy treatment and brokerage, and is the key to protecting consumers and improving transparency in the legal market..Information should be revealed, compared, and evaluated, not hidden.. Through advertising, lawyers can make their presence known to the public and citizens can independently choose the legal service that suits them.. This is the democratization of information and the core of consumer rights..Now is the time to open up the closed legal market.. Freedom of expression and freedom of information, There are ways to correct the capital bias structure while ensuring the right to know.. We need coordination for freedom, not regulation for regulation's sake.. That is true openness and the starting point of a legal market where democracy operates.. [View full article] [Contribution] The closed legal market, now is the time to open it for the people’s right to know (Shortcut)

In a wage lawsuit filed by a retired worker against his former employer, the company claimed a wage reduction due to his irregular attendance record, but it was not accepted. According to the legal community on the 30th, the Seoul Western District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the wage lawsuit filed by Mr. A, in his 30s, against distribution company B on the 30th of last month. Mr. A joined Company B in 2021 and started working, but after repeated non-payment of wages, he eventually expressed his intention to resign. However, he said. Even after leaving the company, the company did not pay about 43 million won in overdue wages and severance pay, and Mr. A eventually filed a lawsuit. Then, Company B insisted on a reduction of the amount claimed. This was because Mr. A had been absent without notice several times while working. The company presented company attendance records as the basis for this and claimed that Mr. A had been coming to the company intermittently for several months without a set work date. Accordingly, Mr. A said that his working location was irregular as he frequently worked outside at the time. He refuted this. He also emphasized that the company had given him wide discretion regarding the place of work, and that it was unfair to recognize attendance based solely on door records. The court sided with Mr. A. The court said, "The plaintiff's attendance record appears to be somewhat irregular, and the defendant has not reduced the plaintiff's salary despite the plaintiff's poor attendance performance," and added, "Even looking at the employment contract, it appears that the defendant has allowed the plaintiff to freely choose the type of work." It continued, "If the plaintiff is absent without notice, “If so, we should have reprimanded him, but we only had work-related contact,” he said, adding, “The plaintiff can be seen to have worked normally, and the company has an obligation to pay him wages accordingly.” Attorney Gwangdeok Kim of Daeryun Law Firm, which represented Mr. A in this case, said, “Company B claimed unauthorized absences on the grounds that there was no record of Mr. “We were able to obtain this ruling by emphasizing the fact that we never received warnings or disciplinary action,” he explained. Shin Min-ji (sourminjee@ikbc.co.kr)[View full article] The company tried to reduce wages by claiming 'irregular attendance records'... Law says, "Pay normal rates" (Shortcut)