Press Coverage

Another employee was sent to a formal trial in response to a request for a summary order to disclose a co-worker's past history. “Failure to recognize the possibility of transmission.” The court upheld the original judgment. An employee who was put on trial on charges of disclosing a co-worker's abortion without consent was found not guilty in the first trial and also in the appeals court. On the 7th of last month, the Chuncheon District Court held an appellate sentencing hearing for Ms. A, a woman in her 20s who was indicted on charges of defamation and acquitted in the first trial, and the original trial and They were both found not guilty. In 2024, during an argument with fellow employee B, Mr. A was accused of defamation by saying that B had had an abortion in the past in front of other employees. Mr. A acknowledged all of his actions but argued that the crime of defamation did not apply. This is because the employee who heard the remarks at the time maintained a close relationship with Mr. B, so there was no possibility of spreading the contents to a third party. The prosecution requested a summary order of a fine of 500,000 won from Mr. A. However, the court referred this to a formal trial, and he was found not guilty in the first trial. The first trial court explained, “The employee who heard the argument between the two people maintained a close relationship with the victim,” and “The defendant may not have been aware that his remarks could be spread to others through this employee.” He added, “Considering the fact that the employee in question did not spread the word to a third party, it is difficult to say that the defendant’s remarks were performance-based and intentional.” The prosecution, which was dissatisfied with this, filed an appeal, but it was dismissed in the second trial. The appellate court also upheld the original judgment, saying, “It is difficult to conclude that the defendant was aware that the remarks would be spread through the employee in question.” Attorney Gil Se-cheol of Daeryun Law Firm, representing Mr. A, said, “In defamation cases, when performance is acknowledged on the grounds of the possibility of spread, an unwritten intention to act despite knowing the risk of spread is necessary.” He added, “Mr. He said, “Because we did not recognize that it could be spread, the intention to fail to write was not established.” Digital Content Team[View full article] Employee accused of defamation by saying “I had an abortion”… ‘Not guilty’ in the appeal trial (Shortcut)

These days, the ‘LIBRA incident’ is one of the biggest topics in the coin industry. There are even rumors that this incident is causing a chill in the coin market again. Immediately after the launch of the Libra Mimcoin* on February 14, Argentine President Javier Millais publicly supported Libra on his social media. Immediately after Millay's post, the price of Libra seemed to soar, but it plummeted shortly thereafter. It was a sharp drop of 94% from the highest price. As expected, I didn't buy it by listening to acquaintances... *Meme coin: A cryptocurrency created by being inspired by Internet memes or trends, the price of which fluctuates based on community and trends rather than technical value. In the coin industry, there are suspicions of insider trading over the Libra incident. Hayden Davis, CEO of Kelsier Ventures, an investment company that led the Libra project, said immediately after the incident regarding suspicions of insider trading, "Meme coin insider trading is illegal. No (Insider trading in memecoins is not illegal, and in fact, all KOLs around the world make money that way),” he said, intensifying the controversy. Hayden Davis is not necessarily wrong in saying this, and it is still in a gray area of uncertainty as to whether memecoins are subject to insider trading regulations. In the United States, when the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) classifies assets as securities, insider trading is regulated under the Securities Act, so there is no question of whether memecoins are securities. There can be discussion. Related controversies have already continued through the 'Ripple Incident' and 'Terraform Labs Incident'. If Korean law is applied, MEMCOIN will be defined as a 'virtual asset' under the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, making insider trading illegal. According to the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, 'virtual asset' refers to an electronic token that has 'economic value' and can be traded or transferred electronically. Non-fungible electronic tokens, such as NFTs, that are mainly for collection are excluded from virtual assets, but can be recognized as virtual assets if they can be used as a means of payment for specific goods or services. Hayden Davis emphasized that unlike other virtual currencies, meme coins do not have 'practicality'. In reality, meme coins have significantly lower practicality and usability and are mainly used for speculation, investment, or participation in specific communities. Therefore, some believe that since meme coins are rarely used as currency, they are excluded from virtual assets like NFTs, which are for collection purposes. However, the 'economic value' mentioned in the Virtual Asset User Protection Act cannot necessarily be seen as including practicality, and in fact, even if it is a meme coin, some such as Dogecoin are used as a payment method in online shopping malls or for donation activities. In other words, as long as it is a 'coin', the practicality itself exists, even if the level may be low. In addition, as long as MEMCOIN is actively circulated in the coin market for investment purposes, it is clear that it is a virtual asset with economic value according to the Virtual Asset User Protection Act. MEMCOIN is a new type of asset that did not exist in the existing financial market. In a situation where even existing cryptocurrencies have not established a clear position in the traditional financial market, the boundaries of Memcoin are even more ambiguous. In this situation, Hayden Davis claimed that "Memcoin is 'impractical'" and "insider trading is allowed," sparking discussion about the nature of Memcoin. In many ways, the Libra scandal suggests important issues in how the crypto market operates and the direction of regulation, and will serve as another opportunity for future market changes. And in the ever-changing virtual currency market, I once again reminded myself that investing based solely on what others say can be quite risky.[View full article] [Column] Libra incident, once again drawing attention to the uniqueness of the coin market (Go here)

One of the most notable online promotional tools in the lawyer industry these days is ‘CPC (Cost Per Click)’ advertising. The cost is calculated based on the number of times a customer clicks on an ad, and the unit price is higher for popular keywords with higher search volume. Advertisers engage in fierce bidding competition to ensure that their advertisements are displayed at the top of search engines and advertising platforms. Lawyers also appear not to be free from competition. This is because advertising expenses are a key factor in accepting cases. The problem is that there is a high risk that these CPC advertisements will undermine the essence of legal services. As advertising competition intensifies, commercialization of the legal market accelerates, and as the cost burden increases, lawyers are likely to try to compensate by raising fees. In particular, the CPC unit price has been rising rapidly in the domestic legal market recently, and in the case of popular keywords with high search demand such as ‘divorce’ and ‘criminal litigation,’ the price per click is known to be around 100,000 won. Even if clicks are made just 500 times a day, advertising costs of 50 million won are spent. The structural problem of CPC advertising should not be overlooked. As it is a system that requires large amounts of advertising expenses to achieve top exposure, polarization surrounding advertising expenses can become extreme even within the lawyer industry. Lawyers who find it difficult to cover advertising costs ranging from at least several million won to up to hundreds of millions of won do not even have the opportunity to contact clients online. It is not only lawyers who are adversely affected. Users also continue to see advertisements from specific lawyers who have successfully bid on high prices, which can lead to problems with limited options. Therefore, I believe that certain regulations are needed in the current CPC advertising market. This is because we must prevent the lawyer advertising market from being reorganized around capital power. However, unilateral and unconditional regulations may infringe on the constitutional values ​​of freedom of expression and freedom of occupation, so they must be approached with caution. I think the most realistic solution at present is to have law firms that conduct CPC advertising form a self-regulatory council. This is a method of having people voluntarily create advertising-related guidelines and encourage them to comply with them. Daeryun Law Firm, to which the author belongs, is willing to participate if the Bar Association takes the lead in forming such a consultative body, and hopes that the Bar Association will suggest a better plan if there is one. With the development of information and communication technology, the expansion of the mobile environment, and the emergence of AI, the channels through which citizens use legal services are also diversifying as times change. In the lawyer industry, ‘online promotion’ is a trend of the times that is no longer difficult to deny. However, there is an important value that should never be forgotten. These are ‘publicness’ and ‘economic equity.’ It is time to begin close monitoring and autonomous regulation of the overheated CPC advertising market so that the burden of advertising costs is not passed on to clients.[View full article] [Contribution] ‘CPC advertising’ is overheating in the lawyer industry, raising concerns about damage to public nature (Click here)

While conflicts surrounding the poor construction of apartments and other apartment complexes continue to persist, the number of people suffering from defect problems appears to be increasing. In fact, according to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the number of dispute cases related to defects in apartment complexes handled by the Defect Review and Dispute Mediation Committee under the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport increased from 3,954 cases in 2019 to 4,559 cases in 2023. In particular, the number of defect disputes handled last year (January to August) was 3,525, an increase of about 20% compared to the average year. Defects that frequently occur in our daily lives include water leaks, cracks, plumbing problems, and noise and vibration. In the case of ‘leakage’, which is an easily encountered defect, the main causes are insufficient waterproofing and poor curing of concrete. If waterproofing is not done properly or concrete curing is not done properly, cracks may occur due to temperature changes, drying shrinkage, etc., causing water leaks. Water leaks are highly likely to spread into secondary problems such as mold and wall cracks. ‘Cracks’ are cracks that occur in the exterior walls and floors of a building, and are typically caused by materials, design, construction, and structural exterior walls. If a crack occurs, caution is required as it can cause fatal damage to the building, such as material corrosion, structural defects, and reduced durability. In the case of piping for water supply, drainage, heating and cooling, and gas construction, poor construction and aging are cited as the main causes. When a problem occurs in the piping, it has a significant impact on the building, which can result in shortening the lifespan of the building. In addition, ‘noise and vibration’, so-called inter-floor noise, is the sound and shaking that exceeds the standard set by law, and is caused by construction site noise and vibration, traffic noise and vibration, etc. in addition to apartment inter-floor noise. Let's do it. Noise and vibration are pointed out as the biggest problems among construction defects because they cause direct damage to people's health, property, and the environment. In many cases, such daily construction defects lead to legal disputes. Usually, if you discover a defect in a newly built apartment, you should first report it to the management office and then request repairs. If no action is taken at this stage, it is necessary to discuss measures through a tenant meeting or go through the sub-committee dispute mediation and financial procedures. The problem is when no conclusion can be reached even here. In this case, a defect repair lawsuit must be filed to clearly determine the cause and responsibility. Accurate diagnosis and judgment must be made to determine whether there were any mistakes in construction, whether the construction was done according to the design drawings, whether it is in compliance with functional and safety regulations, and furthermore, whether there are any aesthetic problems. Kim Hyeong-jin, a lawyer at Daeryun Construction and Real Estate Law Firm, said, “One of the most important things in this stage of determining the cause is ‘construction appraisal.’ Usually, when a construction-related dispute arises, an appraisal is conducted, which is used to determine specialized issues that are difficult for judges to judge. “The purpose is to listen to the opinions of experts and use them as litigation materials. Here, the appraiser is selected based on professional knowledge and experience, and as this is a key process that determines the success or failure of the lawsuit, communication between the lawyer and the appraiser is very important. Therefore, the best way for parties involved in a construction dispute is to seek help from an expert and discuss compensation standards in the event of a dispute. “It can be said that it is a process,” he said. Jin Ga-young, Lawissue Reporter news@lawissue.co.kr[View full article] Construction defects in everyday life, such as water leaks and cracks, and legal response methods (Shortcut)

The suspect said, “I discarded everything I downloaded as a work order.” The prosecution countered, “It is difficult to admit that the suspect was accused based on the fact that he downloaded and changed jobs, and there is insufficient evidence.”There have been cases where employees who were accused of downloading a large amount of confidential data from their previous workplace and passing it on to a competitor were not indicted. The Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office was confirmed to have decided not to indict two people, including employee A, who were accused of violating the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (leakage of trade secrets overseas, etc.) and breach of trust due to insufficient evidence on January 23. They were not charged until 2022. They were accused of downloading over 20,000 trade secret files from the company they were working for, and later transferred to an overseas competitor and used the files, and were forwarded to the prosecution. The accuser's company claimed that after they announced their intention to resign, they received the data on their personal USB drive without justifiable reason and stole it outside. However, suspect A and others completely denied the charges. He countered by saying, “I only downloaded the file to follow work instructions for reviewing the data,” and claimed, “During this process, all USBs used were discarded for security reasons, so no data was leaked.” In addition, “I left the company six months after the download,” and emphasized, “At the time of receiving the data, there was absolutely no purpose for it to be used by a competitor.” The prosecutors who investigated this case decided that the charges were not admissible. Regarding the reason for non-indictment, the prosecution said, “It is acknowledged that Mr. A and others downloaded technical data files to a personal storage device and worked in the same position at a competitor company after leaving the company, but it is difficult to admit the charges based on these facts alone.” Also, “The files were not found on the laptops and mobile phones of the confiscated suspects.” Attorney Hwang Se-jeong of Daeryun Law Firm, who defended suspects A and others in this case, said, “For the charge of leaking trade secrets to be recognized, the data must be used or used abroad. “They had to leak it knowing that it was there,” he said, adding, “The employees downloaded it to perform their duties, and there was no evidence of the company they moved to using the data, so the charges do not stand.” Reporter Son Dong-wook (twson@lawleader.co.kr)[View full article] Employees who downloaded large amounts of company confidential information and transferred to competitors... Prosecutors ‘not indicted’ (link)

Recently, Korea's defense industry has stood out on the international stage based on its technological prowess and competitiveness. In 2024, Korea's defense exports amounted to approximately $9.5 billion, solidifying its position as the world's top 10 defense exporter. These achievements are the result of innovation and effort in the fields of the army, navy, and air force, and at the same time, they further highlight the need for legal support for entering the international market. Korea's K9 self-propelled howitzers account for more than 50% of the global self-propelled artillery market share and have been exported to 10 countries to date. In particular, it was adopted by major countries such as Poland, Finland, and Australia, proving its reliability on the battlefield. Through local production of engines, it has become possible to enter various markets such as the Middle East without approval from the German government, and such large-scale defense exports show that legal review, including contract performance guarantees, export control regulations, and technology transfer restrictions, is essential. However, in some countries, there have been cases where legal disputes have arisen during the arms delivery process after signing a contract, or the schedule has been disrupted due to delays in export permits. These problems can be prevented through thorough legal review and prior action in consideration of international norms. As the United States' strategy to keep China in check is in full swing, the expansion of its naval power is underway, and accordingly, Korean shipbuilders are participating in ship construction and maintenance projects through cooperation with allies. Korea possesses world-class warship and submarine construction technology, and the Republic of Korea Navy's Next-Generation Destroyer (KDDX) and Jang Bogo-III class submarine projects are receiving great interest in overseas markets. However, in the past, there was a case where a legal dispute arose over the scope of technology transfer and maintenance responsibility after a Korean shipbuilder signed a contract to build an overseas naval ship. This suggests that long-term legal response and careful review of the contract structure are essential due to the nature of defense contracts. In the air force field, the Korean fighter KF-21 was developed independently, proving the technological prowess of the aviation industry. The KF-21 is a state-of-the-art aircraft with some stealth features, and its main export targets are Southeast Asian and European countries. Although the export market is expected to expand in the future, international regulations regarding aircraft and related technology transfer are very strict. For example, some countries restrict certain key technologies, and even after an export agreement is signed, there is a risk that the deal will be disrupted by regulatory changes. Therefore, it is essential for defense companies to continuously monitor international export regulations and respond legally. As the defense industry expands into the international market, the importance of legal support is growing. The export of defense products overseas is not a simple transaction of technology, but is directly related to each country's military and diplomatic strategies, so international laws and trade regulations must be strictly observed. In addition, defense companies must prevent legal disputes that may arise in the process of establishing overseas partnerships and minimize legal risks that arise during contract conclusion and implementation. In conclusion, the global expansion of the Korean defense industry is the result of technological prowess and quality, but legal support is essential to make it sustainable. In order for defense companies to maintain continuous growth and competitiveness in the international market, professional legal assistance must be provided, and a systematic legal support environment needs to be created in preparation for future expansion of defense exports and increased international cooperation. Small and Medium Business Team[View full article] [Contribution] Growth of the Korean defense industry and the need for legal support (link)

Additional life sentence for stabbing a fellow inmate with sharp chopsticks... A life sentence inmate who was indicted for stabbing a fellow inmate with a weapon and sentenced to three years in prison in the first trial received a reduced sentence on appeal. According to the legal community on the 25th, the Busan District Court Criminal Appeal Division 3-2 (Chief Judge So-yeon Lee) overturned the original trial that sentenced A (in his 60s), who was indicted on special injury, to two years in prison at the sentencing hearing. According to the crime acknowledged by the court. Mr. A was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder by the Busan High Court in August 1989 and was serving a sentence in Busan Prison. At around 1 a.m. on May 13 last year, Mr. A made a sharp weapon by grinding the end of a plastic chopstick on the cement floor of a bathroom to stab fellow inmate B (60s), with whom he had a difficult relationship, at Busan Prison in Gangseo-gu, Busan. Subsequently, Mr. A is accused of stabbing Mr. B in the face several times with a weapon prepared in advance at a workshop in the prison at around 10:10 a.m. on the same day. As a result, Mr. B reportedly suffered injuries to his face that required two weeks of treatment. In October last year, the first trial court sentenced Mr. A to three years in prison. Afterwards, Mr. A filed an appeal on the grounds that the sentence in the first trial was too much. The appellate court said, "Mr. A has already been punished several times for violent crimes, and although he was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and is serving a life sentence, he committed this crime again. However, considering all the sentencing factors, such as the fact that Mr. A admits to the crime in this case and the fact that the victim fortunately did not suffer fatal injuries, the original trial's sentence is unreasonable because it is too heavy." The sentence was commuted. What does an additional prison sentence mean to a defendant who was sentenced to life imprisonment like Mr. A? Attorney Kim Young-hyung of the Daeryun Law Firm explained, “If a life sentence inmate is sentenced to additional imprisonment, there is a very high possibility that he or she will be deprived of the opportunity for parole review,” adding, “Also, from a criminal policy perspective, it has the effect of facilitating the management of inmates through the disadvantage that if they harm someone or commit a crime in prison, they may receive an additional sentence and extend their sentence.” According to the criminal law, life imprisonment is Even sentenced inmates are eligible for parole if they serve more than 20 years. In fact, life-sentence prisoners who have committed accidental offenses or have extenuating circumstances and whose lives in prison are exemplary are often paroled. Reporter Kwon Tae-wan (kwon97@newsis.com)[View full article] Prisoner in his 60s who stabbed a fellow inmate with a weapon has his sentence commuted on appeal (link)

As Daeryun Law Firm begins in earnest to establish the public interest corporation ‘Kinyeonbeop’, three prominent figures will join as non-registered directors. Daeryun Law Firm announced that former National Tax Service Commissioner Kim Hyun-joon (currently Chairman of Yulhyun Tax Firm), Hong Dae-sik, Chairman of the Law School Council (Sogang University Law School Dean), and Kim Seong-jin, a standing audit committee member of the Korea Exchange, will join as non-registered directors of ‘Kinyeonbeop’. It was announced on the 25th. Human Relations Law is an incorporated association established with the purpose of helping underprivileged groups in legal blind spots and realizing public value such as donations and volunteer activities. The registration of the establishment of the corporation was completed on the 25th of last month, and former Prosecutor General Kim Oh-soo (currently the representative attorney of the Central N Southern Law Firm) was appointed as the chairman of the board. Former National Tax Service Commissioner Kim, who served as the director of the National Tax Service's tax collection legal department and planning coordinator, will support the corporation's operation, including transparent financial management and tax management, under the Personal Relationship Act. We also conduct research on related policies, such as tax relief for the socially disadvantaged and solving tax problems. Chairman Hong helps build an education system for future legal professionals, such as planning public interest law school programs through cooperation with educational institutions. Kim, a standing audit committee member who served as the head of the audit research department at the Board of Audit and Inspection and the public innovation deliberation officer at the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, provides advice in the economic field, including support for small business owners. Daeryun plans to develop NK Law into an independent and fair public interest corporation rather than being led by a specific law firm. In addition, we plan to actively recruit prominent figures with influence in various fields and grow it into a nationwide public interest corporation. Kim Kuk-il, CEO of Daeryun Management, said, “We expect to be able to exert a lot of positive influence on Korea as the People's Law is comprised of influential figures in the political and business sectors, including finance, law, and business.” He added, “Based on Daeryun's global expansion, we plan to expand our scope of service to the world stage, so we plan to play the role of a public interest corporation that helps the underprivileged and vulnerable overseas through our global network.” revealed. Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] Seoul Shinmun - Daeryun Law Firm appoints Kim Hyun-jun, Kim Seong-jin, and Hong Dae-sik as non-registered directors of the public interest association ‘Korean Law’ (link) Roishu - Daeryun Law Firm appoints Kim Hyeon-jun, Kim Seong-jin, and Hong Dae-sik as non-registered directors of the incorporated association ‘Korean Law’ (link) Tax News - Former National Tax Service Commissioner Kim Hyun-joon joins the non-registered directors of Daeryun Law Firm's public interest corporation (link) Sejeong Ilbo - Former National Tax Service Commissioner Kim Hyun-joon participates as a non-registered director of Daeryun Law Firm ‘Inyeonbeop’ (link) Law News - Daeryun establishes ‘Inyeonbeop’, a public interest corporation… Hyun-Jun Kim, Seong-Jin Kim, Dae-Sik Hong, etc. participated as non-registered directors (Click here) Korea Economic Daily TV - Incorporated Association ‘In-Yeonbeop’ appoints Kim Hyun-jun, Kim Seong-jin, and Hong Dae-sik as non-registered directors (Go here) Law School Times - Daeryun Law Firm, Kim Hyun-jun, Hong Dae-sik, and Kim Seong-jin appointed as non-registered directors of the incorporated association ‘Kinyeonbeop’ (link) Tax and Finance News - Former National Tax Service Commissioner Kim Hyun-joon joins public interest association ‘Inyeonbeop’ as a non-registered director (Go here) Legal Times - [Law Firm iN] Hyun-Jun Kim, Dae-Sik Hong, and Seong-Jin Kim join Daeryun's establishment of 'Relationship Law' (Click here)

A company that invested 100 million won in a consulting company but did not receive the principal and profits filed a lawsuit for the investment and won. The court ruled that it was illegal to induce investment by guaranteeing high returns. According to the legal community on the 24th, the Seoul Central District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff on January 17 in a lawsuit filed by electric construction company A against management consulting company B, requesting return of investment money. Previously, Company A was a consulting company in March 2023. I received financial counseling from Company B. Through this, Company B, which had become acquainted with Company A, urged me to invest, saying that it would provide various management consulting services free of charge. Afterwards, in April of the same year, the two companies set an investment repayment date and rate of return for the investment amount of 180 million won and signed an investment contract. However, it is known that Company B changed its attitude after the investment was paid. Initially, Company B paid profits for 6 months, but after that, not only the profits but also the principal for more than a year. It was confirmed that Company A had not returned the investment. It was revealed that Company B had delayed the return, citing various reasons despite several requests by Company A to return the investment. Accordingly, Company A filed a lawsuit requesting return of the investment. Company A argued that the entire principal should be returned, citing the fact that Company B did not fulfill the terms of the investment contract and illegally collected a large amount of investment money using high interest as bait. The court said, "Company B did not have the ability to keep the original agreement and made the investment. The ruling ruled that Company A should pay the full principal amount of the investment, considering that Company A suffered damages due to Company B's illegal actions. Yang Ki-yeon, a lawyer at Daeryun Law Firm who represented Company A, said, "An important issue in litigation for the return of investment is determining whether there were illegal parts in the investment process." “Phrases such as ‘investment contract’, ‘investment’, ‘investment operating period’, and ‘monthly dividend guaranteed rate of return’ were clearly stated,” he explained. Reporter Ko Young-min (youngman@ikbc.co.kr)[View full article] 'Consulting fraud targeting companies'... Court says full investment amount must be repaid (link)

Chest injury due to soil collapsing during work... Construction company: “There was some negligence on the part of the workers.” The court said, “The construction company had a duty to inspect areas at risk of collapse in advance, but failed to do so.” A worker who was seriously injured after being buried in the dirt while working on a manhole filed a lawsuit for damages against the company and won. On January 22, the Chuncheon District Court ruled that A, a man in his 60s, should pay about 60 million won to the plaintiff in a lawsuit against construction company B for damages. In 2022, while working to drill a hole in a manhole at a construction site with a colleague, I suffered an accident when soil collapsed. As a result, Mr. A suffered serious injuries to his chest. Accordingly, Mr. A filed a lawsuit for damages, claiming that Company B did not fulfill its duty of care to prevent the accident. Company B countered that Mr. A was negligent. At the time of the accident, Mr. A was watching his colleague's drilling work and performing an assisting role, so he should have observed his duty of care by observing his surroundings in more detail. The court ruled in Mr. A's favor. The court said, “Employers must check for cracks or the risk of collapse when workers work in places where there is a risk of soil collapse,” and “Nevertheless, the defendant did not fulfill these obligations.” He added, “It is difficult to see the plaintiff’s negligence in causing the accident and expanding the damage,” and added, “It is the responsibility to compensate the plaintiff for the damages.” Lee Ji-yeon, an attorney at Daeryun Law Firm who represented Mr. A, said, “In order to be recognized for damages due to an industrial accident, the employer must “We must prove that the accident occurred due to intent or negligence and the causal relationship,” he explained. “In this case, we were able to prove Company B’s negligence by emphasizing that the accident occurred because the company failed to take safety measures, such as installing a safety net or placing a manager on the manhole.” Reporter Shin Jae-yu (wayjay@sportsseoul.com)[View full article] A worker suffered an industrial accident in a manhole... Law ruling: “Company compensates for medical expenses and alimony” (link)