Press Coverage

Concerns about financial accidents are growing as customer personal information was recently leaked due to the SK Telecom SIM hacking incident. As the scale of information leaks is expected to reach up to 25 million, the possibility of sim swapping using SIM information, creating cloned phones, and stealing text messages or financial authentication information is being raised. Since mobile phones are used as the most important authentication medium in non-face-to-face financial transactions, there is a high possibility that hackers will abuse them for electronic financial transaction fraud. In particular, with the revitalization of Fin-Tech, which combines finance and technology, most financial transactions are currently conducted non-face-to-face. Therefore, the financial industry is often a major target for hackers targeting security vulnerabilities. In fact, non-face-to-face financial accidents appear to occur frequently. For example, in the case of voice phishing, the National Police Agency estimated last year that the total damage amount was KRW 854.5 billion, and the damage per person was approximately KRW 41 million, which is a 91% and 73% increase respectively from the previous year. So who is responsible for non-face-to-face financial incidents such as smishing, pharming, and phishing? To explain this part, we must first look at the legal basis. Pursuant to Article 21 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (Obligation to Secure Safety), financial companies, etc. must exercise the utmost care as good managers to ensure that electronic financial transactions are processed safely, and are obligated to comply with the standards set by the Financial Services Commission in relation to the information technology sector and electronic financial services, such as manpower, facilities, and electronic devices for electronic transmission or processing, to ensure the safety and reliability of electronic financial transactions. In addition, in accordance with Article 9 of the same Act, financial companies, etc. are required to comply with the standards set by the Financial Services Commission in relation to electronic financial services, including manpower, facilities, and electronic devices for electronic transmission or processing, to ensure the safety and reliability of electronic financial transactions. If damage occurs to a user due to an accident that occurs during the electronic transmission or processing of a contract or transaction instruction, or an accident that occurs due to the use of an access medium obtained by false or other illegal means by intruding into an electronic device or information and communication network for electronic financial transactions, the user is responsible for compensating for the damage. In other words, unless there is intentional or gross negligence on the part of the user, in principle, the financial company must compensate the user for any damages incurred. What should be done if a non-face-to-face financial accident actually occurs? First, you can report or consult with the Telecommunications Financial Fraud Integrated Reporting and Response Center (112) or apply for damage relief to the relevant financial company. In urgent cases, you can apply by phone and submit the documents later. Once the financial company receives the application, the account will be suspended from payment, and if any damages still remain in the account, procedures will be taken to refund the victim. If you report a financial fraud to the police and obtain an incident confirmation certificate detailing the date, time, and amount of damage, you can use it as evidence or explanatory material in future procedures. You can also consider seeking punishment for criminals from the investigative agency through a criminal complaint. Naturally, the biggest concern from the victim's point of view is recovering the amount of damage. Based on the agreement with the Financial Supervisory Service, first-tier financial institutions will implement 'non-face-to-face financial accident responsibility sharing standards' from 2024 and second-tier financial institutions will implement 'non-face-to-face financial accident liability sharing standards' from 2025, and they will independently calculate the liability ratio for damages and provide corresponding compensation to users. It is also possible to apply for dispute mediation to the Financial Dispute Mediation Committee of the Financial Supervisory Service. For example, in 2022, the committee acknowledged the negligence of a financial institution in suspending payments for voice phishing and decided to compensate for the full amount of causal damage. It is also possible to file a lawsuit against a financial company claiming damages under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, or to file a lawsuit to confirm the non-existence of debt for an identity theft loan that was not made against the person's will. In relation to this, there have been a number of recent precedents in lower courts favoring the victims. However, the best way is to prevent damage in advance. Do not click on links included in text messages unless you trust the source, and make efforts to regularly remove malware and viruses using security or anti-virus programs. Financial accidents can be largely prevented by using the mobile phone identity theft prevention service of the Korea Association for Information and Communications Technology (KAIT) or, if your personal information has been exposed, by registering it with the Financial Supervisory Service's Personal Information Exposure Accident Prevention System. If actual financial transactions due to identity theft are confirmed or suspected, you can also suspend payments in your name at the Korea Financial Telecommunications and Clearings & Clearings Institute Account Information Integrated Management Service (Account Info) or report your credit cards as lost all at once. It is possible. Account Info also provides a safe blocking service for non-face-to-face account openings, which can prevent additional opening of identity theft accounts. Small and Medium Business Team[View full article] Phishing and smishing rampant... Damages from non-face-to-face financial accidents, what are the responsibilities and solutions? (Shortcut)

The relocation of the ‘network law firm’ is in the midst of a de facto reorganization of the lawyer’s private office industry… The damage is entirely borne by legal consumers. The legal profession says, “We need to stop promoting the idea that an organized response is possible.” One of the emerging topics in the legal world recently is ‘network law firms.’ This is because it is the only one showing rapid growth in the stagnant legal market. Daeryun and YK are considered leaders in network law firms. YK solidified its position as a large law firm last year, recording sales of more than 150 billion won. Last year, Daeryun also entered the top 10 law firms with sales exceeding 100 billion won just 9 years after its establishment. Network law firms mainly advocate a ‘one-firm system.’ Although we have branch offices in various regions across the country, all matters related to the operation of the law firm are collectively managed by the main office. Profit is also shared by all members in a certain ratio. They are also active in marketing, investing a considerable amount of money in advertising costs. Therefore, criticism is being raised within the industry that these law firms are sweeping away all cases in small regions. Before the advent of network law firms, so-called ‘separate law firms’ were making waves in the industry. The separate accounting system is operated in such a way that each lawyer, even if belonging to the same law firm, receives profits as if he were an independent sole proprietor. In fact, it can be seen as close to a private office as only common expenses such as office rent and employee wages are shared. Cases are also handled individually by each office. It is pointed out that in Korea, the term network law firm is used without a clear definition, and in reality, separate law firms are recognized as the same category, which may pose unnecessary risks to customers. An official from a network law firm said, “The Korean legal community still lacks understanding of the structure of global law firms, and some law firms call themselves a network with 2-3 branch offices and only online advertisements, and in fact operate in a separate system system.” “Only a very small number of companies have established a global mega law firm-type structure that allows for quality control on a nationwide basis,” he explained. Contrary to the appearance of a prosperous law firm, in reality, it is run by individual lawyers handling the cases they take on alone. This is why there are concerns that the absence of a case management and collaboration system may lead to a decline in the quality of legal services. There are also cases that clearly demonstrate the problems of separate law firms. This is the so-called ‘trial no-show case’, which became controversial when a lawyer who worked at Byeolsanje Law Firm failed to attend the trial after serving as legal representative for the family of a school violence victim. The victim's family received a partial ruling in favor of the case in the first trial, but due to the lawyer's continued non-appearance, the result was eventually overturned in the appellate court as a 'loss'. As the case became controversial, the law firm that the lawyer was affiliated with issued a statement and quickly drew a line, saying, "The lawyer in question has withdrawn from the main office and has absolutely nothing to do with our branch office." In the end, it is pointed out that due to this type of law firm operation, the damage is borne entirely by the customer. A legal industry official said, “It would be absurd for legal consumers if the place they went to expecting high-quality service actually had less system than a private office.” He continued, “As related disputes are increasing, an internal self-purification process is needed in the industry.” He added, “It appears that sanctions are needed for the practice of deceiving consumers by claiming that an organized response is possible despite the separate system.” Reporter Park Jae-gwan (paksunbi@fnnews.com)[View full article] A law firm with a lot of patterns... We must be wary of ‘Byulsanje’ (Shortcut)

A woman in her 70s who was brought to trial on charges of stealing cash from an acquaintance's bank account was found not guilty. The Daejeon District Court's Cheonan Branch acquitted person A, in her 70s, who was indicted on charges of computer fraud and theft last May. Person A was accused of secretly taking out a bank account from an acquaintance B's bag and withdrawing 700,000 won in July of last year. The prosecution also charged Mr. A with fraud based on the fact that Mr. A borrowed 3.5 million won from Mr. B even though he had no ability to repay. Mr. A completely denied the charges. He claimed that it was true that he borrowed money, but that he never stole the bank account. He emphasized that Mr. B handed him his bankbook, allowed him to withdraw money, and also gave him his password. The court ruled in Mr. A's favor. The court ruled, "Considering that Mr. A has repeatedly made financial transactions with Mr. B in the past and has repaid them within the promised period, it is difficult to say that he deceived Mr. B into a mistake." He added, "Mr. A not only repaid the entire amount of the loan, but also repaid it with interest in addition to the principal. Considering all the circumstances, including the call history between the two, it appears that Mr. B was also fully aware that the transaction was a routine financial transaction." Attorney Kim Dong-gu of Daeryun Law Firm (Lihan), who represented him, explained, "Mr. A had a history of borrowing and repaying a total of about 10 million won from Mr. B over the past 10 years, and in this case as well, he submitted in detail related call recordings, remittance details, text messages related to repayment, etc. to prove that there were actual financial transactions." He added, "This had a positive effect on the court's judgment and was able to lead to a not guilty verdict." Reporter Jeong-won Hwang (jwhwang@mt.co.kr)[View full article] When you don't lend money, 'I take my bank account and run away'... Man in his 70s found not guilty on charges of theft and fraud (link)

Changwon District Court upholds the plaintiff's claim in full. The court ruled that if the contractor had entered into a joint guarantee with the contractor at the time of signing the construction contract, the contractor must repay the amount that the contractor failed to pay to the supplier. The purpose is that the contract takes effect for repayment and requires a joint obligation. On the 9th of last month, the Changwon District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, as in the original trial, in the appeal trial of the product payment claim lawsuit filed by company A, a ready-mix concrete supply partner, against two companies, including company B, the construction project orderer. Previously, company A signed a contract with a construction company in July 2022 to supply ready-mix concrete worth about 120 million won. In this process, Company A requested a joint guarantee from the construction company. Accordingly, company B, the ordering company, promised to guarantee the ready-mix concrete debt. However, the conflict began when the construction company did not pay 82 million won in construction fees to company A. Accordingly, Company A filed a lawsuit against Company B, which provided joint guarantee with the construction company. They argued that if the construction company cannot afford to repay the debt, Company B, the joint guarantor, should also be held responsible. However, Company B countered that it was not responsible. All construction costs have already been paid to the construction company. Company B emphasized, “Even though Company A was aware of the construction company’s inability to pay, it did not notify us of this situation,” and added, “Therefore, it cannot be jointly and severally liable.” The first trial court upheld all of Company A’s payment claims. The court ruled, "The ready-mix concrete price was paid in part on two occasions. As the defendant claims, there is no basis for admitting that the plaintiff knew in advance about the construction company's financial deterioration situation," and "Therefore, we do not accept the defendant's claim." Company B, which was dissatisfied with the first trial ruling, immediately appealed, but the appellate court also ruled in favor of company A. Attorney Jong-hoon Han of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented company A, said, "According to Article 436-2 of the Civil Act, creditors are “If the main debtor fails to fulfill its obligations for more than three months after signing the guarantee contract, it must be notified without delay,” he explained. “However, in this case, the construction company paid part of the ready-mix concrete price twice, which resulted in a change in the notification obligation period.” He continued, “Company B claimed that Company A was negligent in its notification obligation, but since there was no data to determine when funds deteriorated, the defendant's claim was groundless because the notification obligation period could not be specified.” He added, “Because the construction company still has unpaid funds. “Company B, the joint guarantor, is still responsible, and both the first and second trials saw no change in joint liability, so the lawsuit was able to be concluded with the plaintiff’s victory.” Digital Content Team[View full article] Court: “Non-payment of goods… Joint guarantor must pay together” (Shortcut)

A man in his 40s who was put on trial on suspicion of stealing a locker key from a hospital was found not guilty. According to the legal community on the 9th, the Seoul Central District Court acquitted Mr. A, who was indicted on charges of theft on the 1st of last month. Mr. A was suspected of stealing the locker key of the hospital where he worked in 2023. The hospital claimed that Mr. A stole the master key that could open all lockers and that he did this to steal items from other employees. The hospital showed Mr. A relevant CCTV footage and asked him to return the key, but claimed that Mr. A refused. Mr. A denied the charges. He claimed that the item he possessed in the CCTV video was his USB stick and that he did not know the whereabouts of the key. The police investigating the case decided not to send the case, but the hospital raised an objection, and the prosecution decided that the charges were acceptable and summarily indicted Mr. A. Afterwards, the court ordered a summary fine of 700,000 won, but Mr. A objected and requested a formal trial. As a result of the formal trial, the court found Mr. A not guilty. Although the CCTV footage shows Mr. A taking a specific item, it was not visible what he had taken and it was not possible to accurately identify the item in his hand. In addition, after the key was lost, there was no data showing that items in Mr. A's locker were lost while he was working at the hospital, so he was acquitted. Attorney Kim Gwang-deok of the Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, "In a criminal trial, admission of a crime must be proven by strict evidence. We were able to win the acquittal by emphasizing that the items in the CCTV were not clearly read and that no additional theft incidents occurred." Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] A 40-year-old not guilty of stealing hospital locker keys... Court: “There is no clear evidence” (Shortcut)

In 2002, when MB was mayor of Seoul, he first surfaced, criticizing the intervention of state agencies and the use of macro programs as a "threat to democracy"... The cautious view on 'freedom of expression' is also spreading amid controversy over comment manipulation by the far-right history education group Livac School. Livac School is an organization named after the last names of former President Syngman Rhee and former President Park Chung-hee, respectively, and is suspected of trying to create public opinion favorable to the conservative camp and influence various elections through Internet comment activities three years ago. On the 4th, three days after the incident was announced, the police began a full-scale investigation, seizing and searching the residence and office of Son Hyo-sook, CEO of Revac School. Online public opinion manipulation incidents such as the Revac School incident have continued since the early 2000s when computers became popular. Online spaces are the perfect place to push public opinion on various issues in a specific direction. First of all, Internet portal sites and communities have enormous potential in that they are spaces used by hundreds of thousands or millions of people. Moreover, the anonymity that is a characteristic of online makes it difficult to identify the true nature of public opinion manipulation. This means that if some forces systematically carry out posting or commenting activities, it can create an optical illusion as if this is the actual trend of public opinion. The damage is truly enormous. It may hinder the free formation of opinions by voters and ultimately lead to distorted election results. Manipulation of public opinion threatens and undermines the foundation of democracy. Is there any way to prevent this in advance? We looked for appropriate response measures by looking at the patterns of online public opinion manipulation incidents that have occurred in the political world and cases of criminal punishment.‘Public opinion manipulation’ regardless of whether conservative or progressiveOnline public opinion manipulation first surfaced in 2002. Soon after, Mayor Lee Myung-bak of Seoul, who took office on July 1 of that year, was suspected of trying to create 'pro-Lee Myung-bak' public opinion by hiring part-time workers. This is because, in a situation where the mayor was embroiled in a series of rumors, hundreds of posts defending Mayor Lee were posted in the civil liberties discussion room on the Seoul City Hall website in just a few days. Ahead of the 2004 general election, a prospective candidate in the Uri Party's primary was arrested on charges of paying college students to post articles supporting him on the Internet. The National Intelligence Service's comment manipulation incident, which came to light in late 2012, most clearly demonstrated the seriousness of online public opinion manipulation. This was an incident in which the National Intelligence Service directly operated a ‘civilian comment unit’ during the Lee Myung-bak (MB) administration and attempted to manipulate public opinion. In May 2009, when the approval ratings of the MB government hit rock bottom due to protests against the import of U.S. beef, then-NIS Director Won Se-hoon, who was four months into his term, established a 'cyber outskirt team' under the NIS North Korea Psychological Warfare Division and had them post internet posts and comments defending the government and the conservative camp and defaming the opposition party and progressive civic groups. The size of the cyber external team, which initially started with 9 teams, increased to 30 teams (3,500 people in total) in 2012, when the general and presidential elections were held. In this case, former Director Won was sentenced to four years in prison and four years of suspension for violating the Public Official Election Act and the National Intelligence Service Act. The 'temptation' of manipulating public opinion did not discriminate between the left and the right. A representative example is the so-called ‘Druking incident’, which caused great harm to the progressive camp in 2018. It was an incident in which a group of men who were active online under the pen name 'Druking' used a macro program between 2014 and 2018 to manipulate the number of 'likes' or 'dislikes' in comments on news articles on portal sites to favor the Democratic Party of Korea. It was revealed that Gyeongsangnam-do governor at the time, Kim Kyung-soo, a close associate of former President Moon Jae-in, had conspired, and he was eventually sentenced to two years in prison and lost his position as governor.① Macro ② Organizational ③ Punishment must be proven to be quid pro quoAs in previous cases, criminal punishment for manipulating public opinion is possible. Illegality is recognized if an organized activity is carried out, such as using a macro manipulation program (alleged computer interference with business) or installing a similar organization to influence the election even though it is not an official election office (crime of election fraud under the Public Official Election Act). In addition, even if a person promises compensation and instructs to manipulate public opinion, it falls under Article 230 of the Public Official Election Act (crime of buying and inducing interest). However, not all acts related to manipulating public opinion are subject to judicial processing. For example, the act of sharing a specific comment or community post and simply encouraging people to click on a recommendation or leave a comment (so-called 'marking') is recognized as 'freedom of expression' in a broad sense. Livac School also claims, “Writing comments and clicking ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ are clearly legal and constitutionally guaranteed acts of citizen political participation.” Seong-Hoon Ahn, a lawyer at Beopseung Law Firm, explained, "If a small number of people engage in comment-related activities on a small scale, the charge of obstruction of business may not be recognized. However, if the scale reaches a significant level and the targeted comments are exposed to the top for a significant period of time, there is a possibility that a crime can be established. Portal sites also do not restrict users' participation in the 'simple coordinate shooting' style." It is viewed as a free expression of collective opinion. A Naver official said, “It may change depending on the results of the investigation, but it is not easy to view the act of multiple people clicking ‘recommend’ on comments using their own accounts as obstruction of business.” An official from Kakao, which operates the portal Daum, also said, "It is difficult for a business operator to judge whether public opinion has been manipulated and take preemptive legal action simply by expressing a collective opinion online." Therefore, the keys to determining illegality in this Revac School incident are expected to be 'quid pro quo' and 'organization'. According to data submitted by Naver on the 5th by Choi Min-hee, Chairman of the Science, Technology, Information, Broadcasting and Communications Committee of the National Assembly, Naver said, "After analyzing the login records of nine Revac School member accounts, we confirmed some cases where accounts with different names were accessed from the same IP." This means that multiple accounts were accessed from one computer. In a phone call with the Hankook Ilbo, Naver explained, "We are independently checking whether accounts have been transferred or rented in the name of others, and additional information will be revealed through investigative agencies." He added, "It is not possible to determine whether public opinion has been manipulated simply by the fact that multiple accounts are connected from the same IP. However, if one person writes (multiple) comments using another person's account, there may be a potential for problems." Naver's terms of use stipulate that "accounts cannot be sold, transferred, or rented to other people."“The government should step in and strengthen regulations on manipulating public opinion.”Experts argue that the government must step in and strengthen regulations on manipulating public opinion. Yoo Hyeon-jae, a professor of journalism and broadcasting at Sogang University, said, "Considering the rapidly changing media environment, there is no legal system that can respond appropriately to it." Professor Yoo explained, "From the portal's perspective, it is beneficial in terms of traffic (number of visitors), so there is not much incentive to (actively) prevent the act of manipulating public opinion." He added, "The government should first present guidelines such as 'disadvantages when manipulating public opinion' and proceed by requesting these from portals." However, there are also cautious views. This is because defining the meaning of public opinion manipulation broadly has the potential to harm freedom of expression. Lawyer Jae-young Yoo of Daeryun Law Firm said, "Even if specific punishment provisions are prepared for manipulating public opinion, it is difficult to clarify the elements, and issues of legal punishment will arise in the future," and emphasized, "There must be a social consensus first on the extent to which Internet public opinion formation and public opinion-leading behavior will be punished." Reporter Oh Se-woon (cloud5@hankookilbo.com)[View full article] "From the National Intelligence Service and Druking to Livac School... the dark history of 'online public opinion manipulation' (link)

Daeryun Law Firm (CEOs Kim Kuk-il and Ko Byeong-jun) is the only major law firm in Korea that operates a debt collection center, with Lee Sang-kwon, Korea's first lawyer specializing in debt collection, serving as the center's director. Currently, in Korea, only lawyers and credit information companies licensed by the Financial Supervisory Service can conduct debt collection work, and Daeryun is the only large law firm specializing in this field. The background of the creation of the Daeryun Debt Collection Center lies in the values ​​pursued by Daeryun. The vision that ‘anyone can receive high-quality legal services anytime, anywhere’ has also been applied to the field of debt collection. It enabled clients to use the services they needed through lawyers in a legal and efficient manner. What stands out most about the center is the collaboration of experts in multiple fields. Experts with extensive experience, such as lawyers, paralegals, tax accountants, and accountants, provide prompt and accurate results. The center is spearheaded by Lee Sang-kwon, a lawyer specializing in debt collection (31st class of the Judicial Research and Training Institute). He started working as a lawyer in 2002 and has been in charge of overseas debt collection at TCM Korea Law Office. This lawyer entered the debt collection field in earnest in 2011, and after much effort, he achieved the feat of registering debt collection as a specialty with the Korean Bar Association (Bar Association) for the first time in Korea. He is considered an authority in the field of debt collection, having served as the first president of the Korean Bar Association's Debt Collection Lawyers Association and currently serving as an advisor. Attorney Lee, who took over as head of the center, said, "It is time to take a preemptive response as interest in collection is increasing," adding, "By delegating tasks to a professional lawyer, efficient debt collection is possible as they can proceed from simple collection work to complex legal procedures. Various effects are expected by allowing the use of human and material resources at the law firm level." revealed. A lawyer’s debt collection goes through several steps. In addition, this series of processes requires legal means, from proof of contents to payment orders and seizures, and it is important to receive professional help from a lawyer. When asked about the advantages of Daeryun Debt Collection Center, the lawyer responded that the combination of debt collection and litigation was impressive. He said, “Specializing in the field of debt collection means that we have everything from relatively simple tasks such as agreements and proof of contents to general litigation capabilities,” and added, “We are creating synergy by combining expertise in the debt collection and litigation fields.” The close joint response system with Daeryun Security Group is also worth noting. Just as there are plaintiffs and defendants in a lawsuit, there is also a side collecting the debt and a side receiving the debt in debt collection. Daeryun Security Group provides a variety of services, including accompanying professional security guards, to clients suffering from illegal debt collection. Attorney Lee explained, “This can be said to be a new change as we have accomplished something that has not been attempted in the industry. In the case of illegal debt collection, a one-stop solution can be provided in connection with security services.” Reporter Park Jun-sik (parkjs@wowtv.co.kr)[View full article] Korea Economic Daily TV - Daeryun, law firm's only debt collection center operation... “Combining expertise in the litigation field” (link) Sejeong Ilbo - Daeryun operates the only law firm debt collection center... Combining experts such as lawyers and accountants (link) Financial News - Daeryun operates the only law firm debt collection center… “Combined with expertise in the litigation field” (link) Law Leader - Daeryun Law Firm, operates the only debt collection center among major law firms... “Combined with expertise in the litigation field” (link) Segye Ilbo - Daeryun Law Firm operates the law firm’s only debt collection center” (Shortcut)

Daeryun Law Firm announced on the 5th that it will respond to new legal demands, such as strengthening the rights and interests of small business owners and digital transformation of the food industry, centered on its corporate law group. This is because, amid recent lawsuits in the franchise industry due to disputes over franchise fees and head office owner risk, related demand is expected to increase as President Lee Jae-myung announced that he will overhaul the system to guarantee collective bargaining rights to franchisees. The purpose of this pledge is to legally codify the consultation process between the headquarters and franchisees, which has been left to its own discretion until now. Considering this situation, Daeryun decided to provide multifaceted legal support centered on corporate lawyers who are familiar with corporate laws such as the Fair Trade Act and the Franchise Business Act. If a dispute arises, the group plans to conduct a case by conducting a preliminary review and forming a team of 3 to 20 experts in each field, including corporate law, fair trade, finance, and labor, depending on the case. The corporate legal group is headed by attorney Kye-jun Son (36th class of the Judicial Research and Training Institute), who worked at the Fair Trade Commission and handled cases such as Homeplus' violation of the Franchise Business Act and the corporate combination case of SK Telecom and SK Broadband's acquisition of T-Broad. Also participating are Shin Jong-soo, head of the Corporate Advisory Center (31st class), who has expertise in sales, acquisitions, and transactions, and Kim Won-sang, head of the Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Center (43rd class), who represented the franchise owner in the Korea Pizza Hut unfair profit return lawsuit. In addition, lawyer Oh Sang-wan (37th class), who has extensive experience in corporate criminal, civil, and administrative cases. The corporate legal group includes Attorney Bang In-tae (41st class), a former in-house lawyer at a large corporation and an expert in human resources and labor; Kim Yu-jeong, who specializes in taxation and administrative litigation; Ji Min-hee, who advises on fair trade and M&A; and Kim Seo-young, who has extensive experience representing corporate rehabilitation and bankruptcy. In addition, we collaborate in real time with experts such as accountants, tax accountants, and labor attorneys as needed. Key experts include accountant Park Soo-jin in the field of finance and accounting, tax accountant Lim Jeong-oh, who performs corporate tax adjustment and consulting, and labor attorney Nam Seo-hye, who has handled a variety of labor cases. Considering the nature of corporate legal affairs, which involves many mid-to-large-sized cases, an internal system was also established to increase case processing efficiency, such as establishing a special execution headquarters that commands cases led by the headquarters. The headquarters is led by lawyers Cho Young-gon (16th class) and Yeo Sang-won (17th class) with 40 years of experience and manages criminal, civil, and administrative cases. Based on an accurate initial diagnosis, we plan to deploy professional lawyers to smoothly respond to medium to large-sized cases. Daeryun CEO Kim Kuk-il said, “In a situation where disputes between franchisees and headquarters frequently occur, inquiries for related legal advice continue to come in, and in addition to franchise lawsuits, corporate-related criminal, administrative, and tax cases are also increasing. Due to the prolonged economic downturn, both companies and franchise owners are experiencing difficulties in management, so a mutually beneficial solution is needed. “Based on our strengths, we will do our best for the benefit of our customers in any case.” Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] Daeryun Law Firm Strengthens Franchise Dispute Response Centered by Corporate Legal Experts (Click here)

Social awareness of drunk driving has changed significantly since the enactment of the ‘Yoon Chang-ho Act’ in 2018. As public anger was reflected at the time of enactment, the level of punishment for drunk driving was strengthened, and drunk driving became a serious crime. However, it is still not well known which legal provisions are actually applied and how. In particular, many people misunderstand that the ‘three strikes and out’ method is still maintained when it comes to punishment standards. The current Road Traffic Act has significantly increased the level of punishment for drivers who are caught drunk driving more than twice within 10 years. The basis for the strengthened punishment can be found in Article 148-2 of the Road Traffic Act. According to this provision, if a person violates the law again within 10 years from the date of being sentenced to a fine or higher for drunk driving, he or she may be subject to imprisonment for 2 to 6 years or a fine of 10 million to 30 million won based on a blood alcohol concentration of 0.2% or more. Actual cases clearly illustrate this point. Mr. A has been fined four times in the past for drunk driving, and has recently taken measures to prevent drunk driving, such as hiring a dedicated driver. But one day, a problem arose during a drinking party. After finishing the first drinking party, he was taken to the next location by a designated driver, but he was unable to contact the designated driver for nearly an hour to return home from the second drinking party, and Mr. A ended up getting behind the wheel again. The key to the case was how to prove that Mr. A did not intend to drink and drive from the beginning. Therefore, the lawyer in charge submitted objective data, such as the details of calling the substitute driver on the day of the incident and the vehicle location record, and also emphasized that the possibility of reoffending was low and social ties were strong through the diary of abstinence from drinking written after the incident, history of alcohol treatment counseling, and data on family support responsibility. As a result, the court pointed out in the ruling that “the defendant has a history of being fined four times for drunk driving in the past, so his guilt is not light,” but also stated, “he confessed to the crime and showed an attitude of remorse, and comprehensively took into account his age, occupation, family situation, and the circumstances at the time of the incident.” Even in a situation where the possibility of imprisonment was high, Mr. A was able to receive a suspended sentence through explanation of specific facts and a prepared strategy. Attorney Kim Min-soo of Daeryun Law Firm said, "For recidivist drunk driving offenders, the response at the initial investigation stage has a decisive influence. In particular, the level of punishment varies depending on whether the person can explain in detail the circumstances of the driving, post-action response, and sincerity of reflection. If you respond without the legal assistance of a professional lawyer, you may miss important facts or raise the risk of recidivism. “It is dangerous,” he advised. He added, “Especially in the case of repeat offenders, simply admitting the mistake is not enough. From the initial investigation stage, the circumstances of the driving must be clearly outlined, the individual’s social and family circumstances must be explained in detail, and materials that can prove the will to prevent repeat offenders must be systematically submitted.” Global Epic CP Lee Soo-hwan / lsh@globalepic.co.kr ‘Never twice’ Drunk driving: To prevent recidivism, you must seek help from a professional lawyer (Click here)

An office worker who was dismissed and then reinstated filed a lawsuit against the company for unpaid wages, but lost. On the 13th of last month, the Seoul Central District Court ruled that the plaintiff, Mr. A, lost in the wage lawsuit filed against financial company B. Mr. A was dismissed from company B in 2018 on the grounds of receiving money and other valuables. Mr. A, who refused to comply, filed a suit for unfair disciplinary action and won, and Company B reinstated Mr. A to his original position. Approximately 200 million won in unpaid wages was paid. Afterwards, Mr. A filed an additional lawsuit for the unpaid amount, claiming that the wage increase during the period of dismissal was not reflected in the amount paid. In addition, he claimed, “The company signed an agreement with the labor union to pay 50% more wages due to unfair disciplinary action,” and added, “In total, an additional payment of about 400 million won must be paid.” Company B countered that it had no obligation to pay, saying, “The judgment on wage payment has been completed through previous lawsuits.” In addition, the ‘agreement to add 50% to wages due to unfair disciplinary action’ was concluded after Mr. A’s disciplinary action occurred. Accordingly, the court ruled in favor of Company B. “The plaintiff received wages in a previous lawsuit, and this is the same lawsuit as the current case,” he said. “This is a matter that violates the res judicata of the previous lawsuit, so it is illegal because there is no interest in protecting rights.” He added, “The agreement with the labor union was concluded in 2021, but the plaintiff was fighting disciplinary dismissal with the defendant even before that.” He added, “The disciplinary action was taken in 2018 before the agreement was signed. “A plaintiff who has received a disposition cannot claim additional compensation,” he said. Attorney Bang In-tae of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Company B, said, “During the trial, Mr. A claimed that he refiled the lawsuit because he was not aware of the additional wages.” He also explained, “By comparing the case with the previous lawsuit, we were able to prove that the nature of the case was the same, and we were able to obtain a dismissal decision.” Reporter Hye-jeong Cho (hjcho@kyeonggi.com)[View full article] After winning the unfair disciplinary action, the lawsuit for unpaid wages was 'lost'... What is the cause? (Shortcut)