Press Coverage

[Original text] Daeryun, which is a Korean law firm established in 2018, has chosen New York as its first overseas office outside South Korea. “New York is the center of the international legal market, where global law firms converge and compete fiercely. In order to demonstrate that the capabilities of Korean law firms are effective on the world stage, we have chosen New York as our strategic first entry point,” Kukil Kim, the managing partner at Daeryun, told Asia Business Law Journal on why his firm chose the US city. Kim said existing Korean law firms tended to prioritize achieving short-term profitability and reducing operating costs, which led them to favor the Southeast Asian region when expanding overseas for the first time. None of the traditional Big Six firms in Korea – Kim & Chang, Lee & Ko, Bae Kim & Lee, Yulchon, Shin & Kim and Yoon & Yang – maintain offices in North America. “We will primarily focus on providing corporate clients with advisory services on international transactions and overseas expansion and entry,” said Kim. Conversely, the firm will also provide a range of solutions for US and other foreign companies entering the Korean market, including domestic market analysis, entry strategy development, permit procedures, and legal advice on labor and taxation. Kim added that instead of limiting itself to the existing Korean client base, the firm would target companies and individuals of all nationalities within the US as prospective clients. Accordingly, it plans to hire local attorneys directly. The New York office is scheduled to begin operations between June and August with a team of two to three attorneys holding US bar qualifications. When asked on the opening of additional overseas offices, Kim said: “Market research and partnership discussions concerning major cities in Europe and Asia are currently underway internally including those in the UK, Germany, Singapore and Japan, as well as the Southeast Asian market.” In 2024, Daeryun recorded revenue of KRW112.7 billion (USD81 million), ranking it among the top 10 law firms in Korea by revenue for the first time. [Korean] Daeryun Law Firm, established in 2018, chose New York as its first overseas office outside of Korea. Regarding the reason for choosing New York, Daeryun's managing attorney Kim Kook-il told the Asia Business Law Journal, "New York is the center of the international legal market where global mega law firms gather and compete fiercely. We chose New York as our first strategic location to prove that the capabilities of Korean law firms are effective in the global market." Representative attorney Kim said that in general, Korean law firms tend to prefer the Southeast Asian region by first considering securing short-term profitability and reducing operating costs when initially expanding overseas. Korea's six traditional law firms, Kim & Chang Law Firm, Gwangjang Law Firm, Pacific Law Firm, Yulchon Law Firm, Shin & Kim Law Firm, and Yoon & Yang Law Firm, all do not have offices in North America. Representative attorney Kim said, “First of all, we will make international transactions and overseas expansion/entry advice for corporate customers our core business.” Conversely, for the entry of American and other foreign companies into the Korean market, we plan to provide a variety of solutions, including domestic market analysis, entry strategy establishment, licensing procedures, and labor and tax-related legal advice. Representative attorney Kim also added that he will not limit himself to the existing Korean customer base but will target companies and individuals of all nationalities in the U.S. as potential customers. Accordingly, we plan to directly hire local lawyers. The New York office is scheduled to begin operations between June and August with a team of two to three attorneys licensed to practice as U.S. attorneys. In response to a question about opening additional overseas offices, CEO Kim said, “Currently, internally, market research and partnership discussions are in progress for major European and Asian cities such as the UK, Germany, Singapore, and Japan, as well as Southeast Asian markets.” Daeryun recorded sales of 112.7 billion won in 2024, entering the top 10 law firms in Korea by sales for the first time.[View full article] Korean firm Daeryun to open first overseas office in New York (Go here)

A woman in her 40s who left home because of her husband's domestic violence was sued by her parents-in-law for neglect, but the prosecution decided not to indict her. According to the legal community on the 16th, the Suwon High Prosecutors' Office dismissed the appeal of A's parents-in-law, B, to reconsider the non-indictment of A, a woman in her 40s who was accused of violating the Child Welfare Act (child abandonment/neglect) on March 14. Previously, B said that A had a relationship with her husband in 2019. After an argument, she left the house, cut off contact, did not return, and did not pay child support, and accused A of child abandonment and neglect. Ms. A denied the charges, saying that her parents-in-law blocked her from interacting with her children by changing the password to the front door, and that it was impossible to agree on child support because she left the house because she could not overcome her husband's domestic violence. The prosecution confirmed that Mr. A's claim that he was unable to agree on child support because he left home due to domestic violence was consistent with Mr. B's statement. At the same time, both parents are responsible for raising children, but in this case, the final responsibility for raising children was held by Ms. A's husband. Accordingly, it was determined that Mr. A's failure to pay child support alone cannot be considered as an intentional act of neglect. Mr. A's parents-in-law appealed against the prosecution's decision, but the prosecution also maintained the non-indictment of the Suwon High Prosecutors' Office, which reinvestigated the case. Attorney Park Se-hoon of the Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, "For an act of neglect under the Child Welfare Act to be recognized, there must be an intention that Mr. A failed to take action despite knowing that child care was necessary." “It was accepted that it was not possible to smoothly contact the children due to the interference, so intentionality was not recognized,” he said. Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] Daughter-in-law left home due to domestic violence, parents-in-law sued for ‘child neglect’… Prosecution dismisses appeal following non-indictment (link)

A man in his 40s who injured a cyclist and left the scene was not indicted by the prosecution on charges of colliding with a bicycle and running away. “We cannot rule out other possibilities other than overtaking.” The Seoul Western District Prosecutors' Office decided not to indict a man in his 40s, A, who was suspected of violating the Road Traffic Act in March. Mr. A was driving a vehicle on a two-lane road in January. He was suspected of hitting Mr. B's electric bicycle while riding on the shoulder of the road and running away. Mr. B fell on the road and suffered 3 weeks of dislocation injuries, including ruptured shoulder ligaments. Additionally, he spent about 2 million won on bicycle repairs. Mr. B claimed that even though Mr. A recognized that he had fallen through the vehicle's side mirror, he left the scene without taking any action. According to Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, if a driver causes injury by failing to provide relief to the victim during an accident, he or she may be sentenced to more than one year in prison or a fine of up to 30 million won. Mr. A denied the charge. It was confirmed that Mr. B had fallen, but since there was no direct contact between the vehicle and the bicycle, Mr. B claimed that he himself recognized it as a fall accident. The prosecution determined that Mr. A was not guilty. The prosecution explained, “There were no signs of collision between the vehicle and the bicycle, and the victim also stated that he hit the bicycle handlebar, so there was no possibility of contact or the degree of contact was minimal.” He added, “We cannot rule out the possibility that Mr. B fell for reasons other than Mr. A’s overtaking.” Kim Yu-jin, a lawyer at Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. He added, “The charge was not recognized because the possibility of contact was so slim that no sound was even heard when Mr. A passed Mr. B.” Reporter Park Jae-gwan (paksunbi@fnnews.com)[View full article] ‘Thump’ while overtaking a bicycle… The prosecution’s decision on the driver who claimed “I could not detect it” (link)

A man who trespassed into his neighbor's house and attempted sexual assault was sentenced to prison. According to the legal community on the 14th, the 12th Criminal Division of the Daegu District Court sentenced Mr. A, a man in his 60s, who was indicted on charges of home invasion-like rape, to 7 years in prison and ordered him to complete an 80-hour sexual violence treatment program on the 4th of last month. Mr. A was accused of visiting the home of his neighbor, B, a woman in her 60s, last year, attempting to sexually assault her, and filming her body. In addition, Mr. B He was also accused of stealing the cell phone and confining him. At the time, Mr. B succeeded in escaping by jumping out of the window without Mr. A's knowledge, but he suffered a serious injury to his leg and was diagnosed with an 8-week hospital stay. As a result of the investigation, it was revealed that Mr. A committed this crime after going to Mr. B's house and making him open the door to settle the payment. Mr. A denied some of the charges. It is true that he attempted sexual assault, but he entered the house with Mr. B's permission. Also, Mr. B was vomiting. He claimed that he only stayed at home to take care of his condition due to his poor health, and that he had never confined him. The court sentenced Mr. A to 7 years in prison. The court said, "The defendant came into the living room with his shoes on, and even though the victim went into the master bedroom and locked the door, he broke it in." He added, "It cannot be considered a normal method of entry." He continued, "It is difficult to understand that he left the vomiting victim naked even though there was no intention to confine him, and there is no reason to prevent him from using his cell phone. He said, "The crime is serious because he committed the crime using a relationship of trust that he has known for a long time." Kim Jin-won, a lawyer at the Daeryun Law Firm who represented Mr. B in this case, said, "If you entered the house for the purpose of an illegal act, the crime of trespassing is established regardless of whether the resident gave permission." Shin Min-ji (sourminjee@ikbc.co.kr)[View full article] Man in his 60s sentenced to 7 years in prison for breaking into a neighbor's house and attempting sexual assault (link)

Among newlyweds who recently got married, there is a noticeable phenomenon of postponing marriage registration for a certain period of time. In the background, there are practical reasons such as housing subscription, real estate-related systems, and loan conditions. If you start a practical married life without registering your marriage, but do not register your marriage, it is legally considered a 'common-law marriage'. Common-law marriage refers to a state in which there is an intention to marry between the parties and the reality of the couple's joint life is objectively recognized, but the marriage has not been registered. We often receive questions about whether legal protection can be received even in a state of common-law marriage. To conclude, common-law marriages can also be protected by law. However, it is difficult to expect the same level of protection as legal marriage. For example, even if a common-law marriage is established, there is no change in the family relationship register, and since no legal kinship relationship is formed, the common-law marriage spouse is not recognized as having inheritance rights. A common-law marriage can be dissolved by the will of one party, but if the common-law marriage is unilaterally terminated without justifiable reasons, that party may be liable for damages to the other party. In this case, 'legitimate reasons' refer to cases where there is a significant violation of the obligations premised on marital life, such as cohabitation, support, cooperation, and chastity, and cheating is a representative example. In addition, the Supreme Court's established position is that in a common-law marriage, damages can be claimed from the other party who committed the misconduct, not the spouse. Even when the common-law marriage is dissolved, a claim for property division is possible, just like in a legal marriage. However, in order to exercise your right, you must first prove that you were in a common-law marriage relationship by meeting the subjective and objective requirements of a common-law marriage. In particular, the key to dividing property depends on how each person's contribution is evaluated, and the period of marriage is very important in calculating contribution. In the case of a wedding, it is easy to use that point as the standard, but in the case of a common-law marriage that only started cohabitation without a wedding, it is necessary to comprehensively assert and prove the timing of cohabitation, whether joint economic activities, and the perception of those around them. In short, common-law marriage relationships are also subject to protection by law, but unlike legal marriage, institutional and substantive restrictions clearly exist. To avoid falling into a blind spot of the law just because of a common-law marriage, it is advisable to check the legal stability appropriate for each individual's situation and reduce risks in advance.[View full article] [Contribution] Before marriage registration, how far is the right to a common-law marriage? Legal status and protection (link)

Daeryun Law Firm will open a branch office in New York, USA, as early as next month. According to the legal community on the 14th, Daeryun has rented an office in the One World Trade Center (1WTC) building located in Manhattan, New York, and is carrying out final work before opening, including renovating the interior, providing office furniture, and selecting and training permanent employees. We plan to open the office and begin operations as early as June, or at the latest, by August. The office size is 347 pyeong (approximately 1,147 m2). 1WTC is a new building built on the site where the World Trade Center collapsed in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and is the tallest skyscraper in the United States. Several global companies are located here, including financial services companies Ameriprise Financial and Carta, media group Condé Nast, large real estate company Dust Organization, and marketing company Stagwell. This is the first time for a Korean law firm to move into 1WTC. Excluding some mid-sized law firms such as The Kim Law Firm, no law firms have established offices in New York. While major domestic law firms have opened branch offices mainly in Asia and Europe, Daeryun chose the United States, the center of global trade, as its first overseas expansion destination. Daeryun Park said, “We want to jump into the advanced legal market and ultimately introduce an advanced legal system to Korea,” and explained, “We believe that only by having advanced services and a customer-oriented mind can we survive on the international stage and secure competitiveness in the legal market.” The branch office will be located in the United States. The number of people is undecided. First, we hired 2 to 3 people and planned to increase them according to the speed of business expansion. Daeryun's U.S. office has all companies and individuals living in the U.S. as potential customers, not just Korean companies operating in the U.S. or Koreans who have immigrated to the U.S. For this reason, there are plans to directly hire a local lawyer. Currently, Daeryun's U.S. attorney includes attorney Mia Kim (Washington, DC). Daeryun recently signed a strategic business agreement (MOU) with Korini, a comprehensive U.S. real estate platform, paving the way for its entry into the United States. Korini, headquartered in New York, is a company that provides comprehensive consulting ranging from real estate leasing and sales to corporate asset management and overseas expansion. Reporter Jang Seo-woo (suwu@hankyung.com)[View full article] [Exclusive] Daeryun Law Firm stakes in New York… 350 pyeong office to be built (link)

The police decided not to forward a man in his 50s, who was booked on charges of fraud after borrowing money from acquaintances and disappearing without paying back, due to his efforts to repay the debt. According to the legal community on the 14th, the Western Police Station in Yongin, Gyeonggi Province, decided not to forward Mr. A, a man in his 50s, who was booked on charges of fraud on the 3rd of last month. Mr. A was accused of borrowing about 900 million won from two acquaintances for two years starting in 2015 for the purpose of running a business, and then disappearing without paying it all back. At the police, Mr. A denied the charges, saying he had no intention to defraud. He wrote an IOU and repaid the debt by paying principal and interest, but as his health deteriorated, he inevitably reached a situation where he could no longer repay the debt. Mr. A also claimed that he had no intention of deceiving his financial status because his acquaintances, with whom he had maintained close relationships for a long time, were fully aware of his financial situation. The police confirmed that Mr. A had paid interest several times to his acquaintances who were creditors and that he had actually used the borrowed funds for business operating expenses, and determined that Mr. A was not guilty of fraud. Also, considering the relationship between Mr. A and his acquaintances, it was difficult to see that Mr. A deceived his acquaintances even though he did not have the ability or intention to repay. Attorney Kim Young-min of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, “If he had the intention and ability to repay at the time of borrowing, even if he failed to repay, it is only a civil default and does not constitute a crime of fraud. Thanks to Mr. A, he emphasized the fact that he was paying the principal and interest for the borrowed money and proved his intention to repay. “I thought there were no charges,” he explained. Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] A person in his 50s accused of fraud for ‘borrowing 900 million won and disappearing’ will not be transferred… Efforts to repay, including interest remittance (link)

Daeryun Law Firm announced on the 14th that it was selected on the 30th of last month as an executing agency for the Export Support Base Utilization Project (Export Voucher) hosted by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy and the Ministry of SMEs and Startups. The export voucher project is a government support program that provides customized services such as marketing, legal, and design to support small and medium-sized businesses expanding overseas. Companies can freely use the services of registered implementing agencies by receiving vouchers (subsidies) from the government. Depending on the selection of the implementing agency, Daeryun will provide companies with legal, tax, and accounting consulting as well as support in the fields of patents and intellectual property rights. The agreement period is from May 1 to June 30, 2027, and during this period, legal risk prevention and intellectual property protection strategies will be provided to exporting small and medium-sized businesses. Daeryun plans to contribute to the smooth development of global markets and improvement of global competitiveness for participating companies. Specifically, we plan to assist in △export contract review and dispute prevention advice △patent, certification, testing, and export IP strategy consulting △accounting audits and tax risk checks, including foreign exchange transactions. In particular, Daeryun is fully prepared to support companies exporting to the US by focusing on the newly established ‘Tariff Response Export Voucher’ service to reduce the legal risks of companies exporting to the US in accordance with the deepening trend of global protectionism, such as the recent imposition of mutual tariffs by the US and strengthening of export controls on high-tech industries, including semiconductors. Currently, Daeryun has opened or is in the process of opening overseas offices, including in the US, Japan, and the EU, and plans to provide a professional 'tariff response export voucher' service through collaboration between Daeryun's US lawyers and customs experts, US local customs brokers, and legal experts. To support this, Daeryun signed a business agreement on the 13th with the International Customs and Trade Advisory Center (ICTC), which consists of global tariff, customs clearance, and import regulation experts across the Americas, Asia, and Europe, and plans to provide full-fledged global comprehensive legal services. Daeryun CEO Kim Kuk-il said, "With the selection of this project, we will provide practical consulting to help domestic companies enter overseas markets more safely and strategically. We will contribute to strengthening the company's global competitiveness with a sense of responsibility as an executing agency." Meanwhile, Daeryun provides integrated solutions to customers through a collaborative system of various experts, including lawyers, accountants, patent attorneys, and customs experts. Reporter Lee Dong-jun (blondie@segye.com)[View full article] Segye Ilbo - Daeryun Law Firm selected as an implementation agency for the ‘Export Support Base Utilization Project’ (Click here) Tax and Finance News - Daeryun, support for overseas expansion of small and medium-sized businesses... Selected as an implementation agency for the government’s ‘Export Voucher Project’ (Click here) Tax Ilbo - Daeryun Law Firm selected as an implementation agency for the ‘Export Support Base Utilization Project’ (Click here)

The criminal deposit system means that if the perpetrator fails to reach an agreement with the victim, he or she deposits money necessary to restore the victim's rights in the name of settlement money. This system has been considered as a mitigating factor in various criminal cases, including sex crimes. This is clearly revealed in statistical data. According to KBS's analysis of 988 rulings to mark the first anniversary of the implementation of special provisions for criminal deposit in 2023, among 519 sex crime rulings, 365 (70.3%) of the rulings considered the defendant's unilateral deposit as an advantageous factor in sentencing. On the other hand, there were only 13 cases (2.5%) of judgments in which the victim's situation, such as the victim's intention to be severely punished, was not reflected at all in the sentence. In fact, the majority of defendants turn to the criminal deposit system when they fail to reach an agreement with the victim. The deposit system is used as a trick to lower the level of punishment for perpetrators, regardless of the victim's intention to be severely punished. In particular, cases of abuse have continued to occur, such as so-called 'surprise deposit', in which money is deposited near the time of sentencing so that the court cannot confirm the victim's intention, and 'scam deposit', in which a defendant who has received a reduced sentence retrieves the deposit without the victim's knowledge. Accordingly, voices have grown within and outside the legal profession that the deposit system must be fundamentally improved. Due to these problems, the revised Criminal Procedure Act and Deposit Act have been implemented since this year. Following the revision of the law, it became impossible to commute sentences for tricks that exploit the criminal deposit system. In particular, in the case of 'surprise deposit', Article 294-5 of the Criminal Procedure Act (money deposit and hearing opinions of victims, etc.) was newly established to make it mandatory for the court to hear the victim's opinion. In addition, a new regulation was established to prevent the perpetrator from recovering the deposit without the victim's knowledge after receiving a reduced sentence. According to Article 9-2 (Restrictions on Recovery of Deposits) of the Deposit Act, if the victim refuses to receive the deposit or agrees to the recovery, recovery of the deposit is impossible, except in cases where a decision not to indict or acquittal is made. Sentencing standards are also changing in line with these changes. The Supreme Court Sentencing Committee held its 137th meeting last March and decided to revise sentencing standards for crimes such as sex crimes. In the case of sex crimes, while revising the detailed sentencing standards, the phrase 'including deposit' was deleted from the reasons for consideration in the overall sex crime sentencing standards. Sentencing standards are a type of guideline that judges refer to when setting sentences and do not necessarily have to be followed, but if a sentence is to deviate from the standards, a separate reason must be written in the sentence. This is meaningful in that it takes into account criticism that deposit is only a means of recovering damages, but the phrase 'including deposit' may lead to a misconception that deposit alone is a natural mitigating factor. So how should we respond to the changed deposit system? First, if you are a victim, we recommend that you write and submit a petition for strict punishment in order to prevent the offender from receiving an unfair sentence reduction. Additionally, in addition to criminal punishment, you can claim financial compensation for mental and physical damage through a civil lawsuit, so it would be a good idea to consult with an expert and exercise your rights as a victim. If you are a perpetrator, it has become difficult to expect a reduction in sentence by relying on the bond system. If the deposit is made without reflecting the victim's wishes, there is an increased possibility that it will have a negative impact on the outcome of the case. However, as agreement with the victim is the most important factor in sentencing, it can be said that it is important to obtain professional assistance and produce meaningful results rather than reacting haphazardly. Small and Medium Business Team[View full article] Revised sex crime deposit system, trick aimed at reducing sentences becomes impossible... How to respond? (Shortcut)

The Seoul Citizens' Audit Ombudsman Committee announced on the 15th that it has appointed Lee Ji-won, senior attorney at Daeryun Law Firm (Limited) and Choi Han-don, representative attorney at Pyeongsan Law Firm (Limited), as new advisory members of the legal advisory group. The committee's legal advisory group reviews legal issues in the committee's work from various angles and plays the role of supporting legal expertise. The members are lawyers, law professors, and legal experts with a doctorate in law or higher, and the mayor is a member of the legal advisory group. Appointed. The advisory group has provided legal advice on a total of 320 cases since its launch in July 2022 until the end of last month, and with this appointment, the total number of advisory members has increased to 50. The new advisory members are legal professionals with extensive practical and trial experience in the areas of major local administration issues such as real estate, urban administration, and the environment, and are expected to enhance expertise and strengthen the advisory system. Seo Young-deuk, head of the legal advisory group of the Citizens Audit Ombudsman Committee, said “As an advisory body that looks at problems from the citizens’ perspective and suggests solutions, we will strive to provide practical help to citizens’ grievances,” he said. Bo-Ram Yoon (bryoon@yna.co.kr)[View full article] Yonhap News - Seoul Citizens' Ombudsman Commission appoints two new legal advisors... Total 50 people (link) News 1 - Seoul Citizens Audit Ombudsman Commission appoints 2 new legal advisors (link)