Press Coverage

A man in his 30s who repeatedly contacted his ex-girlfriend several times received a summary order, but was acquitted after requesting a formal trial. On January 16, Criminal Division 22 of the Seoul Central District Court (Judge Ha Jin-woo) declared Mr. A, a man in his 30s, not guilty, who had been put on trial on charges of violating the law on the punishment of stalking crimes. Mr. A even though his lover B, who broke up in 2023, requested that he no longer contact him. He was accused of making 165 phone calls or sending messages, photos, and videos. The prosecution found Mr. A guilty of stalking and summarily indicted him on charges of violating the Stalking Punishment Act with a fine of 2 million won. Afterwards, the court issued a summary order, but Mr. A, who did not obey the order, requested a formal trial. During the trial, Mr. A claimed that he took this action to improve relations. He emphasized that he followed Mr. B's request because when he had previously separated and reunited several times, Mr. B said, "Repeatedly try to catch me" and "It is not a crime, so please contact me." Afterwards, the two reconciled for a while, but their relationship worsened again soon after. Mr. A's side added, "At this time, Mr. B continued to encourage contact, such as by setting up a SNS profile screen asking him to return to him. The court ruled that Mr. A was not guilty. The court said, "It is acknowledged that the defendant repeatedly called or sent messages," but added, "The victim only started dating again when the defendant made efforts, such as contacting her several times or visiting her, in the process of repeating breakups and reunions." The victim also sent messages. He explained, “Even after the relationship worsened again, the victim only ignored the contact and did not clearly express what he should not do.” Kim Myeong-cheol, a lawyer at Daeryun Law Firm (Limited), who represented Mr. A, said, “During the trial, we emphasized Mr. A’s situation, which he thought would be able to restore the relationship if he took the actions requested by Mr. B.” He added, “We were able to get a not guilty verdict by highlighting the fact that Mr. A had no intent to commit the crime.” Said. Reporter Hwang Jeong-won (jwhwang@mt.co.kr)[View full article] Man stalked his ex-girlfriend 165 times... Overturned to 'not guilty' due to victim's profile picture (Shortcut)

Daeryun Law Firm "Restricts Access to Consumer Information" on Constitutional Appeals, including 'Article 5 of the Rules on Lawyer Advertisements' The Constitutional Court decided to hear the Korean Bar Association's constitutional petition regarding artificial intelligence (AI) advertising regulations filed by Daeryun Law Firm in the full court. The Constitutional Court is reviewing in earnest whether the Bar Association's regulations prohibiting advertising of AI-based legal services infringe upon the freedom of lawyers to practice their profession. On February 10, the Constitutional Court referred the case to the full court to confirm the unconstitutionality of Article 23, Paragraph 2, Item 7 of the Attorney Act filed by Daeryun Law Firm. This means that the Constitutional Court recognizes the case as subject to review on the merits and deals with whether it is unconstitutional. After receiving the case, the Constitutional Court reviews the legal requirements in a designated tribunal consisting of three judges, and makes a decision to dismiss the case if the requirements are not met. However, as this case moves to the merits trial stage, we plan to review in depth the unconstitutionality of the Bar Association's AI legal service advertising regulations. The key issues in this constitutional petition are whether the regulation of AI-based legal services violates the essential freedom of lawyers to perform their duties and whether it undermines the public interest by excessively restricting consumers' access to legal information. Daeryun launched the AI-based legal consultation program 'AI Daeryun' on January 16, but the Bar Association violated the Attorney Act. On the grounds of possession, the advertisement of the program was banned and a constitutional petition was filed while considering disciplinary action. The provisions that Daeryun took issue with were ‘Article 23, Paragraph 2, No. 7 of the Attorney Act’ and ‘Article 5 of the Rules on Lawyer Advertisements.’ According to the regulations, lawyers cannot advertise the use of AI programs other than those certified by the Bar Association and supervised by the responsible attorney. In addition, advertisements that use AI programs to allow consumers to receive direct legal advice or connect with lawyers are also prohibited. Daeryun argues that the regulations infringe on the freedom of lawyers to practice their profession and limit consumers' access to information by preventing the use of AI-based legal services. This case is evaluated as an important case that obscures the constitutional legitimacy of AI technology and legal service regulations. A legal official predicted, “As legal services using AI are expanding, it is highly likely that legal standards will be established to determine whether bar association regulations hinder innovation in the legal market or are reasonable regulations with public interest purposes.” Park Dong-il (39, 8th time on the bar exam), representative attorney Daeryun, said, “This Constitutional Court hearing is meaningful as it provides an opportunity to review the constitutional legitimacy of AI legal service regulations,” adding, “The legal market is also changing amid the global AI transition.” “It is necessary,” he said. He added, “Daeryun is expanding consumers’ accessibility to legal information by providing ‘AI Daeryun’ for free,” adding, “It is time to reconsider whether the Bar Association’s regulations are in line with the promotion of public interest.” Reporter Jinyoung Lee[View full article] [Exclusive] Constitutional Court begins hearing on merits of AI advertising regulation by Korean Bar Association… Referral to the full court (link)

There is no purpose to defraud the rental deposit, so it does not apply to the ‘tin deposit’ fraud. “Comprehensive consideration of precedents, non-prosecution.” A landlord who was accused of stealing 400 million won in rental deposits from tenants through the so-called ‘tin deposit’ was acquitted. According to the legal community on the 5th, the Eastern Branch of the Busan District Prosecutors' Office recently dismissed Mr. A, in his 60s, for fraud after being investigated on charges of fraud. By April 2020, he was handed over to the prosecution on charges of receiving and embezzling 438 million won in rental deposits from tenants of a villa in Jung-gu, Busan. Tenants filed a complaint against Mr. A, claiming that they were victims of a so-called tin lease fraud in which the deposit for the lease was higher than the sale price of the property. However, Mr. A denied all charges. Mr. A's side claimed, "A provisional seizure was taken on the villa he owned due to his spouse's filing of a divorce suit, and the villa was later sold through a forced auction in 2023. The deposit could not be returned because the winning bid was set more than half the actual market price of the property. It was not a tin rent at the time the villa was rented." The prosecution decided not to indict Mr. A. The prosecution explained the reason by saying, “Whether or not a crime of fraud is established must be determined based on the time of the act, and we comprehensively considered precedents that the suspect cannot be punished even if he defaults on his obligations due to changes in economic circumstances thereafter.” Kim Sang-gu, an attorney at Daeryun Law Firm (Limited), who handled this case, said, “The crime of fraud is established only when there is an act of deception, mistake, disposition, damage to property, and intent to acquire something illegally.” He said, “The case is one in which Mr. A was unable to return the deposit due to an unexpected provisional seizure after he signed a lease agreement with the complainants.” He continued, “Even in a situation where financial conditions worsened due to a sudden change in circumstances, Mr. A sold the pre-sale rights to the apartment he owned and returned the deposit to some of the victims.” Digital Content Team[View full article] Landlord cornered by lease fraudsters... As a result of the prosecution investigation, ‘no charges’ (link)

New land owner demands toll fees from adjacent building owners using the passage Suwon District Court: “Provided for use for the general public... Infringement of public interest” A ruling was made that dismissed the landowner’s claim for usage fees in both the first and second trials, saying that the new owner’s belated imposition of tolls on land that had been used as a passageway for adjacent buildings for a long time constitutes an infringement of public interest. Suwon District Court 1st Civil Division (Presiding Judge Kim Sun-han, It was confirmed that Judges Cho Jeong-min and Cho Hyeon-joo) pronounced a ruling dismissing the plaintiff's appeal on January 8, with the same purpose as the first trial, in the appeal trial of a usage fee lawsuit filed by a landowner in Gyeonggi Province, Mr. A, against 30 people, including Mr. B, the building owner of an adjacent land. Mr. A took issue with the fact that part of the land purchased in 2019 was used as a road leading to Mr. B's buildings, etc., and paid 7 million won in usage fees accumulated previously and continued to pay monthly rent thereafter. They filed a lawsuit claiming usage fees, demanding payment of 300,000 won. In this lawsuit, the defendants, including Mr. B, the owner of an adjacent building, emphasized the ‘public nature’ of the road, saying, “The road in question connects each building owned by Mr. B and others to the public road, and people and vehicles entering these buildings and nearby residents have used the passage for a long time.” Judge Kim Min-cheol of the Suwon District Court, who presided over the first trial of this case, dismissed Mr. A’s toll claim. dismissed. Judge Kim Min-cheol ruled that “there was an implicit agreement on the waiver of exclusive use and benefit rights.” Exclusive use and benefit rights are the right of a landowner to prevent others from using or profiting from their land without permission, and are protected by law, but may be limited according to public interest needs. Mr. A, who was dissatisfied with the first trial ruling, immediately appealed, but the appellate court also decided that “the imposition of tolls on the land in this case is a violation of public interest” and dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal. It was dismissed. Attorney Park Se-hoon of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. B and others in this trial, said, “If the road could not be used, the free passage that had been maintained for decades would be restricted, threatening to infringe on the convenience of nearby residents.” He added, “If it was being used as a public road for residents’ passage, the land owner was able to win the appeal by proving that he could not exercise his exclusive use right.” Reporter Son Dong-wook (twson@lawleader.co.kr)[View full article] New owner of land used as a passageway for a long time claims ‘use fee’... Court says, “Exclusive right to use and benefit is not recognized” (Shortcut)

Subcontracting, which is the act of a contractor (primary contractor) handing over work to a subcontractor (subcontractor) in order to undertake construction or manufacturing, is a form that frequently appears in the construction and manufacturing industries. The main contractor can reduce costs and be free from labor-management relations issues, and the subcontractor has the advantage of being provided with work and achieving growth through strengthening expertise. However, there are also many problems that arise surrounding subcontracts. A representative example is conflict between business owners. In most cases, disputes begin when the contractor presents unfair demands or conditions to the subcontractor. It is not only suppliers who suffer losses due to disputes. This is because the moment a legal battle begins, the contractor cannot avoid financial and time losses. Therefore, it is important for both the contractor as well as the contractor to be accurately aware of the matters to be aware of when entering into a contract. This is to prevent risks in advance so as not to be caught in a lawsuit due to an inappropriate contract and be subject to fines or legal punishment. When entering into a subcontract, there are four main things that the contractor should pay attention to. First, unfair contract conditions that infringe or limit the interests of the supplier must not be established. For example, it is considered an unfair special contract to require additional costs for matters not stated in writing or to pass on to the subcontractor the costs related to civil complaints or industrial accidents that should be borne by the contractor. Second, the subcontract price should not be unilaterally set lower than the general transaction price. In addition, if there is a contract with two or more suppliers, reducing the price uniformly or discriminatoryly without considering the management situation of each company is also prohibited. In addition, when concluding a subcontract through a private contract, the amount should not be set at an amount lower than the contractor's direct construction cost (material cost, labor cost, expenses, etc.), and in competitive bidding, the amount should not be set at an amount lower than the minimum bid price. The third thing to be aware of is that reduction of the subcontract price is prohibited in principle. It is illegal to unilaterally reduce the price set at the time of contract or to retroactively apply the agreement to products ordered before the price agreement was established. If a reduction is necessary, it must be based on a justifiable reason, and consultation with the supplier must take precedence. If you ignore this and reduce the price, you may become embroiled in a legal dispute. Lastly, the contractor cannot request technical data from the subcontractor. This is because the subcontractor's technical data is an important asset in a subcontract. Therefore, requests to provide this to the person or a third party are, in principle, prohibited. However, this is only possible as an exception if the contractor can prove a justifiable reason, and the relevant information must be written in writing and delivered to the subcontractor. The thing to keep in mind here is that the written document must contain specific details about the requested technical data. The purpose of issuing documents is to clearly recognize the specific scope of the technical data and the purpose of use by the contractor to prevent the subcontractor's technology from being unfairly leaked or stolen. If specific matters are not listed, it may be considered that documents have not been issued. Small Business Team[View full article] What should the contractor pay attention to when signing a subcontract? (Shortcut)

Interview with Kim Dae-ryun, customs expert at the Dae-ryun Customs, International Trade and Arbitration Group. U.S. President Donald Trump announced that he would impose additional tariffs on automobiles and semiconductors following the imposition of a 25% tariff on imported steel and aluminum products. The so-called 'tariff war' of the second Trump administration is expected to intensify. As the U.S. tariff policy expands to various industries and other target countries, it is expected to have a significant impact on Korea, which has signed a free trade agreement (FTA). It is a time when it becomes important to prepare Korean export companies for universal tariffs. Daeryun International Trade, Arbitration and Customs Law Firm's International Trade, Arbitration and Customs Group has a variety of experts, including customs experts and accountants, collaborating with customs attorneys. In particular, team members with expertise in specific fields such as FTA origin verification, anti-dumping tariff response, and customs investigation response are providing customized consulting to companies. Customs expert Kim Dae-ryun, who recently joined the group, is a customs broker, bonded broker, origin manager, etc. As an expert in the customs field with a logistics manager qualification, on the 4th, he analyzed issues in the customs field and expressed his opinions on risk management strategies that companies should adopt in the global customs environment. The following is a Q&A with expert Kim Dae-ryun. Q. As trade between countries becomes more active, the need for experts in the customs field is increasing. What kind of work is usually performed? We advise on a wide range of tasks, including FTA consulting, product classification preliminary screening, customs assessment, and import/export requirements consulting, so that companies can proactively manage customs law risks that arise in the process of importing and exporting goods. In addition, we are responding to investigations that occur at customs, including customs investigations, customs dispute resolution, and foreign exchange inspections and investigations.Q. The customs field is a field that requires a variety of expertise, so there are likely to be many difficulties in handling the work. What difficulties do you have in performing your duties? Due to the nature of trade transactions, various goods are imported and exported, and transaction methods also vary. Understanding the product is essential in order to classify the product, which is the basis of customs duties. However, in the case of a newly developed product, there is a difficulty in that a lot of study is needed about the product and industry group.Q. As a customs expert, what are your opinions on recent customs issues? It is important to review the adequacy of the basic items of import declaration in the United States, such as item classification, dutiable value, and country of origin declaration, in accordance with the reasonable care obligation stipulated by the U.S. Customs Service (CBP). I think a more detailed response is needed, such as checking for roundabout export transactions of Chinese goods through the country, obtaining final confirmation of the country of origin through CBP Ruling, the U.S.'s authoritative interpretation of the origin, and managing risks related to additional tariffs.Q. What are the legal and institutional methods that can be used to reduce tariff risks? The areas where tariff disputes occur most often are product classification (HS CODE) and tariff evaluation. The U.S. CBP conducts preliminary screening for product classification and customs assessment as well as origin. To manage tariff risks, companies need to utilize the relevant system. In Korea, it is important to manage taxation risks in advance through pre-examination procedures such as pre-examination of product classification, pre-examination of taxable price determination method, and pre-examination of taxable price for special relationships.Q. Regarding customs issues, the role of the Daeryun International Trade, Arbitration, and Customs Group appears to be important. In relation to this, what services does the group currently provide? The group provides a variety of legal services, from origin consulting at the product production planning stage to pre-application for origin determination to CBP. Through these services, it is possible to determine whether additional tariffs are subject to additional tariffs by confirming the country of origin of exported goods, which greatly helps companies in establishing tariff strategies.Q. One last thing I would like to say. As the current global trade environment is rapidly changing, the impact of tariffs and trade regulations on corporate management is increasing. The pre-screening process often takes a long time. In particular, since the documents required for application are diverse and the contents are complex, it is recommended to seek help from an expert. Reporter Eunhye Lee (zhses3@joseilbo.com)[View full article] “Trump’s ‘tariff war’… Risk management is important through pre-screening procedures” (link)

Plaintiffs appealed for unfair use of “used for personal purposes” Prosecutors said, “There is no fact that the investment funds were used for personal purposes… acknowledged the worsening management situation” Controversy is rising as the CEO of an investment company, who was handed over to the prosecution on charges of stealing over KRW 1 billion in investment money, was found not guilty. On December 5 of last year, the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors’ Office decided not to indict the company representative, Mr. A, who was sent on charges of fraud. Mr. A has been a victim for about a year since 2019. He received an investment of approximately 1.7 billion won from 13 people, but was accused of not returning the principal and interest. The plaintiffs claimed that Mr. A promised to pay a certain percentage of the profits compared to the investment, but did not even repay the principal and used the money for personal purposes. Mr. A completely denied the charges. They refuted that the failure to pay profits was because the borrowers did not repay the loans due to business difficulties due to COVID-19. At the same time, he emphasized that efforts are being made to collect the debt by requesting an order to seize the debt against the car owner who is in arrears. The prosecution determined that Mr. A was not guilty. The prosecution said, “After checking the transaction history of the company’s account, it was not confirmed that the suspect personally used the investment funds,” and “When looking at the financial statements, it is acknowledged that the company’s situation has worsened since 2019.” He added, “It appears that the court has accepted the request for a decision to seize and collect the debt against the borrower.” He added, “Considering the situation in which he informed the plaintiffs that there was a possibility of loss of principal, it cannot be said that the suspect deceived the plaintiffs.” He added. Attorney Park Seong-dong of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, “In order to constitute a crime of fraud, an act of deceiving the other party with intent must be included. In the case of Mr. A, it was acknowledged that he did not receive money due to the worsening business situation of the borrowers, so the charge was not established.” Reporter Kim Jong-cheol (jckim99@sportsseoul.com)[View full article] The CEO who received 1.7 billion won in investment and did not repay the principal and interest... Prosecutors say, “There is no suspicion of fraud” (Shortcut)

Union side: "MBK abandons Homeplus and focuses only on recovering investment" The Homeplus branch of the supermarket industry labor union directly criticized MBK Partners' excessive investment recovery strategy on the 4th in connection with the start of the corporate rehabilitation process, saying that its excessive investment recovery strategy has brought about a management crisis. On this day, the Homeplus union said, "Homeplus' management crisis is a tragedy caused by MBK's greed," and stated, "Government intervention is urgently needed." He then pointed out, "Despite Homeplus' financial difficulties, MBK has continued to pay dividends on redeemable convertible preferred stock and has not kept its promise to invest 1 trillion won. In fact, it has abandoned Homeplus and is concentrating only on recovering the investment." The union said, "The company did not reveal any specific reasons or plans other than its vague stance of 'maintaining normal operations,' and conducted everything in secret and there was no discussion with the union before applying for corporate rehabilitation procedures." They added, "The livelihoods of approximately 20,000 union members and their families are at risk. “Union members are suffering from extreme anxiety,” he said. The union expressed concern that the start of the rehabilitation process would lead to store closures and mass layoffs, and predicted, “Once the rehabilitation process begins, layoffs, wage cuts, and welfare reductions will be inevitable in the name of reducing fixed costs, and the worst-case scenario, such as store closures and asset sales, will become a reality.” At the same time, he lamented, “After the acquisition of MBK, we have already reduced thousands of direct employees and there is no cost to reduce any more.” The company must submit a rehabilitation plan by June 3 according to the procedures. Sales continue to rise, but rehabilitation procedures have begun. MBK acquired Homeplus for 7.2 trillion won through a leveraged buyout (LBO) in September 2015. The union claimed, “Homeplus was responsible for the borrowings and interest incurred in this process, and the company’s management condition became extremely poor,” and “MBK indiscriminately sold stores to repay the loans and reduced the size of the business, which led to a decline in credit rating and loss of long-term competitiveness.” According to the Financial Supervisory Service’s electronic disclosure system, Homeplus sales are based on the fiscal year (March to February of the following year) ▲2021 It continues to increase, including KRW 6.4807 trillion ▲ KRW 6.6 trillion in 2022 ▲ KRW 6.9316 trillion in 2023. As of January 31st of this year, sales for the previous 12 months amounted to 7.0462 trillion won. However, operating profit during the same period turned into a deficit: ▲2021 (KRW 133.5 billion) ▲2022 (KRW 260.2 billion) ▲2023 (KRW 199.4 billion). The accumulated operating loss in the third quarter of last year was 157.1 billion won, a 20.6% increase compared to the same period last year. Choi Cheol-han, secretary general of the Homeplus branch of the supermarket union, pointed out, "Currently, Homeplus stores are doing well. However, the reason for applying for corporate rehabilitation is probably because MBK is trying to recover its investment." He added, "MBK has tried to sell Homeplus for several years, but has failed every time. We cannot rule out the possibility that they will attempt M&A at a low price through split sales during this rehabilitation process." Won-sang Kim, senior attorney and head of the Corporate Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Center at Daeryun Law Firm, said, "M&A and acquisition of real estate assets are possible even during the rehabilitation process, and there have actually been cases where real estate assets were sold at low prices." He pointed out, “Even if it was evaluated at 4.7 trillion won, it would not be possible to guarantee whether it would realistically be sold or cashed out.” He added, “Separately, salaries and severance pay for executives and employees must continue to be paid with priority.” Reporter Hwang Jeong-won (jwhwang@mt.co.kr)[View full article] Homeplus labor union "Corporate rehabilitation is intended to recover MBK investment... M&A concerns" (link)

The Supreme Court made a final decision to dismiss a case in which a person in his 70s transferred business funds and was later sued for return of the loan. The First Division of the Supreme Court announced on the 4th that it had confirmed the lower court ruling on December 26 last year in the appellate trial of a loan lawsuit filed by Mr. A, in his 70s, against the business owner, Mr. B. In 2016, Mr. A, who got to know Mr. B, the CEO of the company where his son works, gave 200 million won to Mr. B on two occasions in 2018. Mr. A claimed that the amount was a loan. The claim was that Mr. B complained of financial difficulties and asked for a loan. Then, Mr. A filed a lawsuit claiming that only 100 million won was returned through his son's account, and the remaining 100 million won was not returned. However, Mr. B said that he had never requested a money loan, and that he only delivered the amount necessary for the business at his request. The first trial ruled in favor of Mr. B and said, "The defendant received a loan from the plaintiff. After receiving the money, the money was sent to the company's account on the same day or the next day," he said. "Although the defendant is the CEO of the company, the plaintiff's son also serves as an executive director and owns shares." He also said, "It appears that the plaintiff was also involved in the operation of the company through his son," and ruled, "The 200 million won that the defendant sent to the plaintiff cannot be considered a loan." Mr. A, who was dissatisfied with the first trial ruling, appealed, but the second trial court said, "The plaintiff's appeal is The Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the lower court's decision, saying, "The reason is not much different from the claim in the first trial." The Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the lower court's ruling. Attorney Lim Seon-jun of the Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. B, said, "If it was a loan, as Mr. A claimed, if it was a loan, he should have lent the money and received interest for a certain period of time, but he has not once requested repayment from Mr. B. Even looking at these facts, Mr. A borrowed an account in Mr. B's name to transfer business funds to a company he owns." said. Reporter Jeong Eui-jin (jej88@ikbc.co.kr)[View full article] After transferring business funds, "Return the borrowed money"...Law "It cannot be considered a loan" (Shortcut)

Listen to opinions and present solutions centered on the revised Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, including the CSO reporting system and disclosure of expenditure reports. March 7, 2 p.m., Daeryun Yeouido Headquarters Conference Room. While tensions are rising as regulations on illegal rebate issues within the medical and pharmaceutical industries are recently strengthened, a seminar for pharmaceutical and bio companies will be held. On March 7, at 2 p.m., Daeryun Medical & Pharmaceutical Group will hold a conference in the conference room of Daeryun Headquarters in Yeouido, Seoul. It was announced on the 28th that a seminar will be held under the theme of 'issues and practice of compliance - focusing on the revision of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act'. This seminar was prepared to prepare for the pharmaceutical sales salesperson (CSO) reporting system introduced from 2024 and the expenditure report disclosure system on details of providing economic benefits, which is being implemented in earnest from this month. Daeryun will discuss in depth the current issues and response measures that arise in the process of introducing compliance, focusing on lawyers specializing in pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, healthcare, and fair trade. The seminar will be held on this day with a total of 4 topics. First, in the first session, attorney Choi Yun-jeong, a pharmaceutical expert with a pharmacist qualification, will give a presentation on the topic of ‘Pharmaceutical companies and CSOs’ expenditure report preparation and disclosure system.’ Attorney Yoon-Jeong Choi will explain the CSO reporting system, how to prepare expenditure reports, and related issues, focusing on the revised Pharmaceutical Affairs Act. In the second session, Attorney Gye-Jun Son, head of the Corporate Legal Group, will make a presentation. Attorney Gye-jun Son, a former secretary of the Fair Trade Commission, plans to introduce pharmaceutical rebate regulations under the Fair Trade Act and the Fair Trade Compliance Program (CP). The third session will be led by advisor Myeong-soon Choi, who is considered an authority in the medical and pharmaceutical industries. Advisor Choi Myeong-soon, who has worked for about 30 years at the National Health Insurance Corporation and the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, will give a presentation on the practice of post-management of supply details related to pharmaceutical distribution, expenditure reports, and administrative dispositions for drugs that disrupt the distribution order. In the final session, tax accountant Jeong-oh Lim will give a presentation on the topic of ‘tax issues that arise when kickbacks are discovered.’ Tax accountant Lim Jeong-oh, who has provided tax adjustment and advice to hospitals, clinics, and manufacturing companies, will analyze various cases and provide help in preparing response strategies based on this. This seminar is open to anyone involved, including pharmaceutical, bio, and corporate legal personnel, free of charge. Applications for participation can be made on the Daeryun website. Kim Kook-il, CEO of Management, said, “This seminar was prepared to listen to the difficulties faced by pharmaceutical and bio companies regarding rebate regulations, such as the CSO reporting system and disclosure of expenditure reports, and to suggest practical solutions.” He added, “As this is an opportunity to share and communicate with current issues, we ask for your interest and participation.” Meanwhile, Daeryun Medical Pharmaceutical Group announced its plan for ‘Evergreening Patent Strategy’ in January 2025. We have successfully completed the first seminar on the theme of ‘Understanding the Law,’ and we plan to hold seminars encompassing various fields in the future. Reporter Dong-wook Son (twson@lawleader.co.kr)[View full article] Law Leader - ‘Pharmaceutical/Bio compliance issues and countermeasures’...Daeryun Medical/Pharmaceutical Group seminar held on the 7th (Go here) Roisch - “Discussion of pharmaceutical and bio compliance issues and countermeasures”… Daeryun held seminar on the 7th (Go here)