Press Coverage

It is very important to set the standard time for property division during divorce. This is because the property held by each person at that reference point soon becomes the subject of division (property subject to division). The court states that ① "In principle, the property subject to division and its amount are determined based on the closing date of the factual hearing of the divorce suit," and ② "If it is easy to spend or conceal, such as money, and there is a risk of double addition when the reference point is different, the object and amount of division are determined based on the time of breakdown of the marital relationship." ① can be easily solved as follows. First, the 'factual trial' refers to the first and second trials in Korea's three-trial system. The first and second trials determine the facts based on the arguments of both sides and the evidence submitted, confirm that certain 'facts' that are the subject of legal judgment exist, and then make legal judgments accordingly. In other words, it is called a ‘factual trial’ because it can judge the ‘facts’. On the other hand, the Supreme Court, the third trial, judges only the ‘law’ without touching the ‘facts’ established in the ‘factual trial’. It only involves one more legal review of the ‘factual trial’ decision. Therefore, the 3rd trial is also called the 'legal trial'. In other words, if the divorce suit progressed to the 2nd trial, the last argument date (argument closing date) of the 2nd trial, and if it stopped at the 1st trial, the last argument date of the 1st trial can be used as the standard for property division. Let's solve ② easily as well. ‘The point of breakdown of the marital relationship’ literally means the point at which the marital relationship between the couple is broken to the point where it can no longer be restored. This will vary depending on each case, but it is generally considered the time of breakdown when one party files a divorce suit. The time when separation begins is sometimes seen as the point of breakdown. In the case of financial assets such as money that is easy to spend or hide, typically bank deposits, the time when a divorce suit is filed (when the complaint is filed with the court) can be viewed as the standard time for property division. Let's look at a specific example. Let’s assume that A owned an apartment worth 1 billion won at the time she filed for divorce. Assuming that the market price of this apartment has reached 1.5 billion won by the end of the trial hearing, what is the value of this apartment in property division? The answer is 1.5 billion won. This is because the object of property division and its amount are, in principle, determined based on the closing date of the trial trial. So, what would happen if A sold the above apartment for 1.2 billion won in the middle of the lawsuit? As of the closing date of the trial trial, A is not the owner of the apartment, so the above apartment cannot be regarded as property subject to division. However, in this case, it can be said that A holds assets subject to division of 1.2 billion won, equivalent to the sale price of the apartment. Next, at the time the divorce suit was filed, A held a bank deposit of 1 billion won, and this deposit increased to 1.5 billion won by the end of the trial hearing. So, how much is the deposit subject to division? The answer is 1 billion won. This is because the standard time for division of financial assets is generally considered to be the time when a divorce suit is filed. In this way, the core of property division is the process of considering whether various individual assets such as real estate, automobiles, deposits, insurance, and stocks should be included or excluded from the division, and what their value should be, depending on the standard time. Small and Medium Business Team[View full article] Why is the timing of property division important in divorce proceedings? (Shortcut)

While on trial for stalking an upstairs neighbor, the crime was "only an attempt, but he prepared a weapon in advance and could not avoid imprisonment." A man who had been in conflict for years due to noise between floors was sentenced to prison for trying to threaten his neighbor with a weapon. It has been pointed out that noise between floors goes beyond simple discord between neighbors and sometimes leads to violent crimes. Judge Kim Hyun-joo, Criminal Division 3, Western Branch of the Busan District Court, sentenced Mr. A, a man in his 30s, who was indicted on charges of attempted special intimidation, to four months in prison on the 19th. Mr. A has been in conflict with B, a woman in her 50s who lives on the upper floor of his house, over the issue of noise between floors since early 2022, and has been accused of violating the law on the punishment of stalking crimes. was on trial. Meanwhile, Mr. A received a 112 call at 8:25 a.m. on November 11 last year and was told by the police that he had made a report regarding inter-floor noise from the upper floor. Mr. A, who was enraged by this, grabbed the weapon that was in his small room and went out the front door, shouting, “I will kill those above.” However, he was stopped by a police officer in front of the front door, so the crime ended up being an attempt. Judge Kim ruled, “The crime was only an attempt and the victim did not recognize the defendant’s special threatening behavior, but Mr. A committed the crime while he was being tried for stalking Mr. B, and he had a weapon prepared in advance, so he cannot avoid a prison sentence because he used the weapon.” Recently, conflicts over noise between floors have become a social problem, with cases being applied to the stalking punishment law. There is. In fact, in August last year, the Busan District Court sentenced a man in his 70s who was arrested and indicted on charges of violating the stalking crime punishment law to one year and two months in prison. This man continued to visit the house above where a woman in her 30s moved in alone, complaining and swearing, and even went to him with a baseball bat and hit the front door. However, in some rulings, the man was found not guilty, and attention is focused on the criteria for applying stalking charges. In May of last year, the Seoul Central District Court acquitted a man in his 40s who was indicted on charges of violating the stalking punishment law and causing injury. The prosecution determined that Mr. C caused injuries to Mr. D, including insomnia and anxiety disorder, by swearing and behaving badly at night on 17 occasions from May 2017 to June 2021. However, the court ruled, “It is difficult to say that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he stalked the victim and caused insomnia and anxiety disorder through threats and other actions.” The legal community explains that the crime of stalking is established when a specific act is performed continuously and repeatedly to cause anxiety or fear in the other person. Park Dong-il, attorney representing Daeryun Law Firm, said, “As conflicts due to noise between floors intensify, there are many cases where the other party engages in unwanted contact, approach, and surveillance repeatedly, and as a result, there is a possibility that it may meet the legal requirements for a stalking crime.” He added, “Therefore, in the process of resolving the issue of noise between floors, it is necessary to refrain from emotional responses and take a cautious approach that takes legal risks into consideration.” Reporter Kim Seong-hyeon (kksh@busan.com)[View full article] I was stopped when I tried to visit my neighbor with a weapon due to a conflict between floors... 4 months in prison (link)

Victim of physical fight during drinking bar fight suffered 6-week injuries Prosecutors say “in the process of grabbing each other by the collar” A man who assaulted a colleague was handed over to the prosecution, but was not indicted. According to the legal community on the 19th, the Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office granted a suspended indictment to Mr. A, a man in his 60s, on charges of assault causing bodily harm on December 23 last year. Mr. A grabbed colleague B by the collar in September last year. He was accused of pushing, knocking down, assaulting, and causing injury. As a result of the investigation, it was confirmed that the two people got into an argument while drinking and got into a physical fight. As a result, Mr. B was diagnosed with a 6-week injury, including fractured ribs. Mr. A admitted to all charges. However, he claimed that he fell because he was drunk and was unable to properly control his body while grabbing Mr. B by the collar. The prosecution decided not to indict Mr. A. The prosecution said, “The degree of injury suffered by the victim in this case is not light,” but added, “It appears that the victim fell while grabbing each other by the collar and shaking, so it is difficult to place the responsibility of the injury entirely on the suspect.” He added, “The victim also stated that the other party did not intend to hurt him,” and added, “We took into consideration that the suspect acknowledged and reflected on his mistake and that we both reached an amicable agreement.” In this case, Mr. Attorney Kang Jeong-hoon of Daeryun Law Firm (Lihan), who represented the victim, said, “Unlike assault, where a prosecution cannot be filed if the victim does not want to be punished, the crime of involuntary punishment does not apply to the crime of assault causing bodily harm.” He added, “This is a case in which criminal punishment was avoided because it was acknowledged that there were extenuating circumstances in the circumstances of the case and that an agreement had been reached.” Digital Content Team[View full article] A man in his 60s who knocked down and hit a colleague was ‘not indicted’… “The suspect is not entirely responsible” (Shortcut)

Controversy over Daeryun Aju and Daeryun AI service Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act vs. Replacement of the executive branch of the legal tech industry's shrinking bar association... Paying attention to the possibility of change Amid the growing craze for AI legal services, such as chatbots and brokerage platforms that combine artificial intelligence (AI) technology and legal services, debates are continuing. This is because the Korean Bar Association (Bar Association) is taking strong action against AI legal services launched by some law firms on the grounds that they violate the prohibition on advertising under the Attorney General's Act. In the law firm industry, there is a suggestion that the Korean Bar Association is setting up 'cheokhwabi' and taking a hard line, and that they should find an agreement with each other. According to the law firm industry on the 19th, the Korean Bar Association is said to be considering disciplinary action against Daeryun Law Firm's AI-based legal service 'AI Daeryun'. AI Daeryun is a service that supports lawyers in writing various legal documents and provides legal interpretation and various precedents to user questions. Daeryun explains that it has launched this service because it believes that the use of AI in the legal market is an irreversible trend of the times. The Bar Association's position is that it will examine whether 'AI Daeryun' violates the Bar Act regulations. It is said to be contrary to Article 5 of the Rules on Lawyer Advertisements (lawyers, etc. cannot make advertisements with methods or content that allow consumers to directly use programs such as artificial intelligence or connect consumers to artificial intelligence programs) enacted in October of last year. Daeryun filed a constitutional petition on the 17th of last month, claiming that these regulations infringe on the freedom of press, publication, professional practice, and business. The bar association also imposed fines and reprimands on the representative attorney and six affiliated lawyers for 'AI Daeryuk Aju', launched by Daeryuk Aju Law Firm in November last year, on the grounds of violation of the Bar Act. The Bar Association determined that there were problems with the AI ​​chatbot replacing lawyer work and the Naver advertisement placed at the bottom of the AI ​​response. Daeryuk Aju also objected to the Bar Association's disciplinary action and submitted an objection to the Ministry of Justice on the 7th of last month. The law firm industry points out that there is a risk that the Bar Association's continued use of sanctions could shrink the entire legal market. A lawyer who used to be a judge said, "Unconditionally banning AI-based legal platforms could actually result in hindering the development of the domestic legal tech industry. If we regulate domestic AI legal services, there is a high possibility that foreign AI services will eventually take over the domestic market, so we need to move in a direction that can be utilized rather than simply regulating them." However, there were also concerns that the legal market could be buried in 'AI omnipotence.' This means that following AI's incorrect judgment in sensitive disputes such as lawsuits can result in irreversible damage. Kim Jae-sik, a lawyer at Apex Law Firm, emphasized, "I am in favor of using AI as a second opinion, but I am opposed to using AI entirely while excluding human judgment." He added, "We should avoid permitting commercial use of AI-reliance." Meanwhile, as the new Chairman of the Korean Bar Association Kim Jeong-wook, who is scheduled to take office on the 24th, pledged to "form a platform and AI response consultative body," there may be a change in the atmosphere regarding the use of legal platforms and AI. Interest is gathering. An official at the Korean Bar Association said, “I think the next executive branch will follow the same lines as the current one (with respect to AI),” but added, “If the executive branch changes, won’t there be discussions about whether to maintain it in some way or find an agreement or compromise?” Reporter Kim Hyeong-jun (dhkd7979@naver.com)[View full article] [Law Firm Zip Exploration] ‘Legal AI’ stopped in front of the Bar Association… “Find a consensus” (Shortcut)

Public officials who were put on trial on charges of preparing false official documents after receiving a request from a real estate development company were found not guilty in the second trial following the first trial. According to the legal community on the 17th, the 6-3 Criminal Division of the Suwon District Court held an appellate hearing on December 17 last year for seven people, including Mr. As in the first trial, he was declared not guilty. Mr. A was sent to trial in 2012 while working as a local government official on charges of receiving a favor from real estate development company B and providing convenience in obtaining construction-related permits. Company B submitted documents to the local government department stating that it would build a joint collection and delivery center on a specific site designated as an urban planning facility at the time, and the prosecution found that Mr. A wrote a false official document despite knowing that this request from Company B violated the current law. I saw it. The prosecution also claimed that Company B's joint collection and delivery center, which was primarily used as a knowledge industry center and officetel, was contrary to the purpose of urban planning facilities, which is to improve public welfare, and did not carry out change procedures to conduct development activities other than the original purpose. In addition, Company B was in a situation where development activities could not be carried out because it did not meet the requirements for designating a legitimate project implementer, and emphasized that Mr. A and others were aware of this fact but tolerated it. The first trial court found them all not guilty in January of last year. The court first mentioned that Mr. A and others did not apply the law by falsely stating the facts in the process of preparing the official document. Even if there is a mistake in applying the law incorrectly or not applying the law that should have been applied, the crime of creating a false official document cannot be established if there is no false statement about the facts that became the premise for its application. The court also said that at the time the document was prepared, there was no clear legal principle that could legally prohibit or make it impossible to designate Company B as the project implementer. In addition, the court explained that it was not easy to reach a conclusion as there were many different opinions as to whether the joint collection and delivery center that Company B wanted to build was actually in conflict with the purpose of the previous urban planning facility and whether a separate change procedure must have been followed before permission was granted. In the meantime, the court said, "The defendant, who is a public official, chose a certain view before the interpretation of the law was established and handled the work as a result, and as a result, it was illegal, and there was an intention to write false official documents at the time of the work." “It is difficult to draw a conclusion,” he added. Although the prosecution objected to this not guilty verdict, the appellate court dismissed the appeal, saying there was no error in factual or legal misunderstanding in the original judgment. Attorney Ahn Seung-jin of Yuhan Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. “We emphasized that the proposed violations of law were based on incorrect interpretation of the law,” he said. Reporter Ko Young-min (youngman@ikbc.co.kr)[View full article] Officials involved in licensing corruption found not guilty at first trial and then appeal (Shortcut)

Interest in the legal responsibility for the fire at the construction site of a high-end hotel and resort in Gijang-gun, Busan, which killed 6 people and injured 27 people, is growing. In the legal community, there is an analysis that there is a high possibility of legal liability for the construction company that directly managed and supervised the construction site. According to the Busan Police Agency on the 17th, the construction company was responsible for completing the fire at the ‘Banyan Tree Haeundae Busan Hotel & Resort’ in Yeonhwa-ri, Gijang-gun on the 14th by November of last year, but continued construction beyond the deadline. At the time of the fire, 841 workers from 40 subcontractors were carrying out various tasks at the site. Because of this, materials were piled up all over the place. The legal community believes that there is a high possibility that the construction company will be held legally responsible. Attorney Dong-il Park, CEO of Daeryun Law Firm, said, “Currently, both the developer and the construction company are known to be different companies, and it appears that the construction company that directly hired workers and managed and supervised the construction site will not be able to escape responsibility.” Attorney Song Young-in of Compass Law Firm said, “There is a high possibility that the responsibility of the construction company and the contracting or partnering company will be acknowledged,” and “If the construction company does not have a special agreement, the liability may be less than that of the construction company.” The key is whether or not the Act on Punishment of Serious Accidents, etc. (Serious Accident Punishment Act) has been violated. Attorney Choi Jae-won of Siwoo Law Firm analyzed, “We need to look at the outline of the case in detail, but there is a good possibility that the Serious Accident Punishment Act will be applied because six workers died. The most important thing seems to be whether work guidelines and safety management were properly followed.” Another lawyer explained, “The application of the Serious Accident Punishment Act seems unavoidable, but complex legal disputes are expected over who is responsible because the issue of compensation to victims and bereaved families must also be addressed.” There is also controversy over whether the deceased worker should be covered by insurance. Employers who employ workers must subscribe to both employment and industrial accident insurance. Of course, daily workers are also eligible to join. The surviving family of Mr. A (44), who died in the fire, claimed that Mr. A was not insured. However, the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service said, "The accident site is covered by industrial accident insurance and employment insurance." Reporter Kim Seong-hyeon (kksh@busan.com) Reporter Yang Bo-won (bogiza@busan.com)[View full article] “The company in charge of construction is responsible for the fire at the site” [Banyan Tree fire] (Shortcut)

A woman who was handed over to the prosecution on charges of contacting her ex-husband through phone calls and messages several times was not indicted. On December 24 last year, the Suncheon Branch of the Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office ruled that Mr. A, who was suspected of violating the law on the punishment of stalking crimes, was 'not guilty'. Ms. A was accused of contacting her ex-husband, Mr. B, on approximately 30 occasions in September of last year. Ms. A denied the charges. He refuted that Mr. B continued to ask for a lot of money and that he only contacted him to ask the reason for this. He then emphasized that during the process of communicating, Mr. B never expressed his intention to refuse contact. The prosecution determined that Mr. A was not guilty. The prosecution said, "At the time of the crime, it was confirmed that hundreds of messages were exchanged between the two people," and "It cannot be seen that the suspect sent the message unilaterally." He added, "The message only contained information such as methods to solve financial problems, and no expression of intent to cause harm was confirmed." He explained, "The suspect's actions may cause bothersome and unpleasant feelings, but they cannot be seen as actions that cause anxiety or fear." Attorney Sangwan Oh of Daeryun Law Firm (Limited) said, "Stalking is causing anxiety or fear through a specific act against the other person's will and without a justifiable reason. There were circumstances to ask Mr. A the reason for Mr. B's request for money." He added, "Mr. B did not answer Mr. A's phone call requesting the money back, but continued to ask for money through messages." He added, "After comprehensively judging these issues, the prosecution determined that Mr. A's actions did not constitute stalking. “I can see it,” he added. Reporter Hwang Jeong-won (jwhwang@mt.co.kr)[View full article] “I asked for money,” but when that didn’t work, I reported it as stalking… Jeokbanhajang’s ex-husband (link)

The fiercely contested 53rd Korean Bar Association President election ended on the 20th of last month. Although various agendas were discussed, the biggest topic of this election was network law firms. Although there were detailed differences of opinion on methods, etc., the voices of all candidates were the same: that network law firms should be actively regulated. The author has also received several questions about network law firms from various stakeholders, including lawyers and reporters. At such times, the author would always convey his position, saying, “There is no reason to reject any proposal if the relevant regulation proposal does not go against the Constitution and the values ​​of the free market and contributes to the advancement of the public’s right to know and the expansion and development of the legal market.” However, it is necessary to think deeply about the essence of the regulation proposal mentioned by each candidate. The author believes that the purpose of the regulation is to ‘improve the rights of the people’ and ‘healthy growth of the legal profession.’ It is believed that these regulations were created with the hope that the domestic legal market will become more competitive and that high-quality legal services will be provided to the people. If this is the thinking of the candidates who want to become the leader representing about 35,000 lawyers, our legal community must now come together and take a step forward. In addition to regulating some network law firms that operate illegally, there is a need to pay attention to eradicating the deep-rooted evils in the legal profession for a long time. As one of the evils that must be eliminated from the domestic legal market, the author would like to mention ‘legal brokers.’ The activities of a legal broker usually begin with ‘impersonating an office manager.’ He introduces himself as an office manager, approaches clients and lawyers, and collects a fee in return for arranging cases. Until about 10 years ago, these legal brokers were considered a very serious social problem. Statistics were announced that out of the 10,725 cases of legal corruption that occurred from 2011 to the first half of 2014, 5,353 cases, or nearly half, were civil and criminal broker cases, so there is no need to explain the seriousness of this further. Accordingly, the courts, prosecutors, and lawyer groups formed a task force (TF) to take action to eradicate legal brokers. However, recently, another concept has emerged. These are ‘expert committee members’ and ‘advisory committee members’ who are non-lawyers who were retired police officers. It is known that they mainly play an advisory role in criminal cases. The problem is that some of them not only provide advice but also try to exert influence by unfairly intervening in the investigation process. As legal brokers operate beneath the surface, changing only their names, the public is burdened with the double burden of economic burden and distrust of the judiciary. Daeryun Law Firm (Lihan), to which the author belongs, has been carrying out midnight activities to eradicate legal brokers. The goal was to educate internal members about the illegality of legal brokerage and actively encourage reporting. Of course, it is true that the efforts of individual law firms alone have limitations in eradicating the ills that have permeated the entire industry. The good news is that investigative agencies have recently shown a more active willingness to investigate legal brokers. In July of last year, the Ulsan District Prosecutors' Office succeeded in detaining and indicting a former police chief and law firm expert on suspicion of collusion with a legal broker. The expert in question is said to have exerted direct and indirect influence on the police investigation team. As such, there are still a lot of issues that need to be resolved in our country's legal profession. I have no doubt that this election for the president of the Bar Association will be a signal of new change. We hope that the new Bar Association president and executive team, who will take office on the 24th of this month, will not only solve new challenges but also make efforts to eliminate existing bad habits to create a healthier legal market. Daeryun is also ready to take the lead more than anyone else. Park Dong-il, representative attorney at Daeryun Law Firm (Limited)[View full article] Network law firms and legal brokers... “Liquidation of legal brokers, the Korean Bar Association must take the lead” (link)

A driver who hit and killed a pedestrian crossing the road while driving without a license had his sentence reduced to probation in the appeals court. The 2nd Criminal Division of the Suwon District Court sentenced Mr. A, a driver in his 60s, who was put on trial on December 20 last year on charges of violating the Special Act on Traffic Accidents (death), to one year in prison and two years of probation, breaking the two-year prison term in the first trial. Mr. A is due in December 2022 He was suspected of hitting and killing a passerby who was crossing the crosswalk. At that time, it was confirmed that the victim was hit by Mr. A's vehicle, fell to the opposite lane, and was soon struck again by a vehicle coming from the opposite direction. The victim suffered serious injuries in this accident and was taken to the hospital, but eventually died. During the trial, Mr. A first admitted that the accident occurred due to his negligence. However, it was emphasized that the victim suffered a second accident when he fell after colliding with his vehicle, and that this second accident appears to have been the direct cause of death. The first trial court sentenced Mr. A to two years in prison. The court said, "The defendant shocked the victim who was crossing the street, causing damage by depriving him of life. We took into account the fact that he had a history of traffic-related crimes, including being punished for drunk driving and unlicensed driving in the past." Mr. A, who was dissatisfied with this, filed an appeal, and the second trial sentenced Mr. A to probation. The appellate court explained, "The defendant's professional negligence was serious in that he neglected his duty to look ahead and shocked the victim." He then revealed the reason for the sentencing, saying, "The defendant has acknowledged his mistake and is reflecting on it, and has reached an amicable agreement with the victim's family and does not want to be punished." Attorney Park Se-hoon of Daeryun Law Firm (Limited), who represented Mr. A, said, "During the trial, it was emphasized that the negligence of the driver of the opposite vehicle that caused the second accident at the time cannot be ignored." said. Reporter Hwang Jeong-won (jwhwang@mt.co.kr)[View full article] Unlicensed driver who struck a pedestrian crossing the street was sentenced to probation on appeal (link)

Daeryun Law Firm (Limited), which entered the ‘Top 10 Law Firms’ 9 years after its establishment, held an opening ceremony for its Daejeon branch office at the Science Center located in Yuseong-gu, Daejeon on the 12th and began full-fledged operation. Daeryun Law Firm (Limited) Daejeon Branch Office announced its official start by inviting guests from home and abroad on this day. The event began with an opening speech by CEO Kook-il Kim, followed by a congratulatory message from CEO Park Dong-il, an introduction to the company by Director Lee Ki-jun, an introduction of the AI system and corporate advisory center by Vice President Lee-seon Choi, and a closing speech by Director Jeong-beom Kim. CEO Kook-il Kim said, “Since first opening as ‘Daeryun Law Firm’ in 2016, we have been awarded the title of ‘Top 10 Law Firms with the Shortest Time to Enter the Top 10 in the Domestic Legal Market’. He expressed his ambition by saying, “We will continue to recruit experts in various fields, including business, taxation, and medicine, and promise to become a reliable helper in realizing social justice so that high-quality legal services can be provided anywhere in the country.” Daeryun Law Firm (Lihan) will be able to provide faster and more convenient legal services to customers in the central region through the opening of a branch office in Daejeon. In particular, we plan to strengthen expertise and increase customer satisfaction through AI systems and corporate advisory centers. Meanwhile, Daeryun Law Firm (Lihan) operates branch offices in major cities across the country, including its headquarters in Seoul. Additionally, about 100 lawyers and 200 executives and employees are working hard to provide the best legal services to customers. Reporter Kim Mi-young (kmy@dailycc.net)[View full article] Daeryun Law Firm (Limited) opens Daejeon General Headquarters and strengthens legal services in the central region (Click here)