Press Coverage

Daeryun Law Firm (Limited) announced on the 9th that it signed an MOU for regional development with Goyang Special City. The signing ceremony held at the Open Mayor's Office at Goyang City Hall on the 2nd was attended by CEO Daeryun Kim Kuk-il, lawyer Jeon Hyo-cheol, and Goyang Special Mayor Lee Dong-hwan. Currently, Goyang City is carrying out various projects to realize a self-sufficient city through job creation and promote a free economic zone. Accordingly, Goyang City plans to continue a more stable business by signing an MOU with Daeryun, a law firm that is expanding beyond the domestic market and entering the global market. Through this MOU, Daeryun plans to provide legal assistance in attracting investment and overall urban development projects in Goyang City. In particular, we plan to provide advice on taxation, accounting, and labor to prevent legal risks in the Ilsan Techno Valley project and the free economic zone designation project being promoted by Goyang City and to ensure stable operation of global companies operating in the city. Goyang Special Mayor Lee Dong-hwan said, “Goyang City provides the optimal environment to attract investment from domestic and foreign companies,” and added, “Based on cooperation with Daeryun, we will strengthen Goyang City’s urban competitiveness and grow into an international investment destination.” Daeryun CEO Kim Kuk-il said, “Daeryun is building a global network by collaborating with various overseas law firms,” and added, “Through this agreement, we will generously provide legal support and consulting to help Goyang City become a hub for international business.” Meanwhile, Daeryun is currently expanding into major overseas cities such as Tokyo and New York and is expanding into a global law firm. Through this, Daeryun plans to provide the best legal services around the world.[View full article] Segye Ilbo - Daeryun Law Firm (Limited) signs MOU with Goyang Special City… ‘Leap to become an international city’ (Shortcut) NSP Communications - Goyang City and Daeryun Law Firm Sign MOU for ‘Leap to an International City’ (Click here) Aju Economic Daily - [Law Firm Lounge] Daeryun signed a memorandum of understanding with Goyang City for regional development (Click here) Asia Economy - Goyang City-Daeryun Law Firm, MOU signed... ‘Leap to become an international city’ (Shortcut) Venture Square - Daeryun Law Firm signs a business agreement with Goyang City (Click here)

Elementary school students who molested and bullied classmates in the same elementary school were handed over to the juvenile division of the court. It was confirmed that the Gyeongsangnam-do Provincial Police Agency transferred Boy A (12 years old), who was suspected of violating the Act on Sexual Protection of Children and Adolescents, to the juvenile division of Changwon District Court at the end of October. Juveniles between the ages of 10 and 14 who commit acts that violate the juvenile law are considered criminal minors and are subject to protective measures instead of criminal punishment. Person A is accused of exposing part of the body of his classmate, Person B, by pulling down his pants in an elementary school classroom in June 2023. According to the police investigation results, it was confirmed that Group B has suffered from group bullying since 2020. It was confirmed that they habitually harassed Group B, including swearing and teasing him for no reason. In addition, it was revealed that there were acts of physical violence. Another classmate, C, swung a chessboard and hit B on the head. Currently, C is being sent to the juvenile division of the Changwon District Court on charges of special assault. At the School Violence Countermeasures Review Committee (School Violence Committee) held later, Group B mentioned that they were suffering serious trauma due to bullying by the offending students and insisted on severe punishment for them. Group B's legal representative emphasized that severe punishment should be imposed, citing the fact that the violence of the perpetrators has reached a serious level and that the victims are unable to continue their studies due to the school violence that has continued for a long time. The school violence committee, which accepted this claim, decided to impose sanctions on the offending students, including a ban on contact (No. 2), school volunteer work (No. 3), special education (No. 5), and suspension of attendance (No. 6). The maximum punishment for school violence is possible, up to expulsion (No. 9). The police who investigated this case acknowledged the perpetrators' charges of forcible molestation and decided to send them to the juvenile department. Attorney Kim Dae-su of Daeryun Law Firm (Lihan), who is the legal representative for the victim student B, said, “In the case of a victim student, he or she must explain in detail the damage he or she has suffered to the school violence committee or the police, and the psychological damage suffered by the victim in this process is also great.” “We were able to resolve the injustice, and based on the future results, we plan to proceed with the civil lawsuit in an advantageous manner,” he said.[View full article] Elementary school students who committed school violence by ‘hitting the head with a chessboard and even sexually harassing’... sent to the juvenile department (link)

To the social information security system 52Court of Unauthorized Access to Personal Information "It is an abuse of power, but there is no legal punishment." A public official in Busan was put on trial on charges of accessing information about her ex-boyfriend's family without permission through an internal system, but was ultimately acquitted.. The court ruled that although the actions of public officials may be grounds for disciplinary action, there is no legal basis for punishment.. 8According to Japanese legal circles, the Supreme Court 1wealth(Chief Judge Suh Kyung-hwan)A district office official in Busan was indicted on charges of violating the Personal Information Protection Act. A(30Rental/Rental)The original verdict of not guilty was confirmed in the appeal trial against Mr.. I worked at an administrative welfare center in Busan. AMr. 2022year 4~6Monthly through the Social Security Information System, my ex-lover BMr. BMr.'s father, younger brother, etc. 3Total personal information about people 52He was indicted on charges of unauthorized viewing on multiple occasions.. AMr. BMr. 2021since 2022year 5It is reported that they dated until February.. The social security information system was established by the government to manage welfare benefit recipients., AThrough this system, Mr. BYour family's name and date of birth, address, I checked the phone number, etc.. AHe was in charge of social welfare work and had comprehensive authority to view personal information.. However, during the viewing process BThere was no consent from Mr., I found out about this BThe investigation began when Mr.. The prosecution AMr. BBecause the information was obtained without the father's consent and due process, the Personal Information Protection Act59article 1like, my72article 2It was judged that it violated the provisions of. Personal Information Protection Act59Article: The person who processes or has processed personal information 'Obtaining personal information or obtaining consent for processing by lying or other illegal means or methods' etc. are prohibited.. my72Dozing off 'A person who obtains personal information through lies or other illegal means or methods'is punishing. 1The trial court pursuant to the relevant provisions AIn addition to abusing the authority given to Mr. 'Unfair means or methods'It was determined that a crime would be constituted only if there was an act of obtaining personal information.. but AMr. BIn order to view your family's personal information, you logged in to the Social Security Information System using your ID and password., In fact, at the time, there were no additional procedures to protect personal information, such as entering an additional reason each time personal information was viewed or obtaining approval from a superior.. hereto 1The trial court "ASimply by failing to obtain the consent of the information subject or go through other due procedures. 'Lies or other unjust means or methods'It is difficult to believe that it corresponds to"While "AIn the process of actually viewing personal information, a reason, such as a written or oral request from the complainant, is required.. If unauthorized access is made without such reasons, it is an abuse of authority or an inherent limit to authority has been exceeded., Depending on internal rules, this may be grounds for disciplinary action."I decided. In addition, "AAlthough there is nothing wrong with Mr., It is difficult to say that the provisions questioned by the prosecution have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt."as "AAlthough he obtained information beyond his authority,, We are found not guilty because we did not neutralize security procedures or enter false reasons."ruled that. The appellate court also "When we review the original trial's judgment by comparing it with the records, we find that the original trial's judgment is justified., It cannot be said that there is an illegal misconception of fact there."He dismissed the prosecution's appeal.. The Supreme Court "When looking at the reasons for the original judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the original judgment did not violate the rules of logic and experience, exceeded the limits of free deliberation, or misunderstood the legal principles regarding the establishment of a violation of the Personal Information Protection Act."He dismissed the prosecution's appeal.. In other words, the judiciary AMr. Unauthorized access to the personal information of his ex-boyfriend and his family 'Abusing one's authority'That's true, but there are no regulations to punish it. AIt was decided that Mr. could not be criminally punished.. In addition, in order to punish for violating the Personal Information Protection Act, ABeyond the abuse of power 'Unfair means/methods'This must be mobilized, but AThe court found him not guilty because he only accessed the social security information system with his own ID and had no means or method of tampering.. Regarding this, the law firm(finite) Attorney Daeryun Jeong Sa-bong is "Until the law is revised, it is important to prepare self-help measures at the administrative level in order to fill legal gaps related to personal information protection."While "In other words, we prevent unauthorized viewing of personal information through self-rescue measures such as strengthening security through technical means., There is a need for more stringent management in terms of strengthening disciplinary action and authority management for public officials viewing inappropriate information."He emphasized. In fact, since last year, the Ministry of Public Administration and Security has issued a policy stating that public officials who inquire or leak personal information without permission may be dismissed or dismissed. 'Guidelines for handling disciplinary action for violations of personal information protection laws and regulations'second 'Disciplinary work rules and manual'reflected in. Regarding this, Attorney Jeong "In this guideline: 'Abused for various crimes'As in the case where 'Serious damage to data subjects'However, it is difficult to evaluate this as a self-rescue measure to prevent simple harm to ordinary citizens."While "In order to recover from the damage suffered by citizens who have been subject to unauthorized access, the minimum solution would be for the executive branch and local governments to reflect the agreement with the victim in the standards for disciplinary action when deciding on disciplinary action for unauthorized access to personal information."suggested that. [View full article] A public official was found not guilty of unauthorized access to ex-lover's family information in Busan... why? (Shortcut)

Station worker A was indicted on charges of professional negligence and manslaughter. The court said, "In order to maintain the obligation to depart on time... it would have been difficult to anticipate the accident." A station worker who was indicted for failing to fulfill his safety management duties in connection with an accident in which a passenger who suddenly jumped onto the tracks was hit by a train was found not guilty in the first trial and also in the appeals court. This is because it was judged that the station staff could not have predicted the passenger's behavior. According to the legal community on the 5th, the Daegu District Court's 1st Criminal Division dismissed the prosecutor's appeal and upheld the lower court's ruling against station worker A, who was suspected of professional negligence last November. While in charge of traffic control at a train station in December 2021, Mr. A is suspected of causing an accident by neglecting his duty of care, such as passenger control. A passenger at the time. Mr. B suffered an accident when he was hit by a train while trying to cross the tracks while heading to the platform. As a result, Mr. B was seriously injured and was taken to the hospital. The prosecution determined that the accident occurred because Mr. A failed to comply with his duty to control passengers at the crossing and entered the station room first. Mr. A denied the charge, saying that he entered the station room first to perform railroad control duties. At the time, Mr. A was carrying out passenger control and railway control duties alone, but he emphasized that it was realistically impossible to perform both duties at the same time due to the distance between the platform and the station office. In addition, Mr. A also claimed that there were difficulties in predicting the occurrence of accidents. The victim suffered an accident while walking on the tracks rather than at a crosswalk, and even if proper control had been implemented, the accident could not have been prevented. The first trial court ruled in favor of Mr. A. The court said, “The reason Mr. A stopped controlling the crossing and entered the station office early was to fulfill another obligation of departing on time,” and added, “Therefore, it is difficult to say that there was a violation of the duty of care at work.” He then said, "At the time of the accident, the victim's blood was found on the tracks away from the railroad crossing, along with testimony that the victim was on the railroad tracks away from the railroad crossing." He concluded, "The accident occurred on the railroad tracks, not the railroad crossing." The prosecution filed an appeal, but the appellate court also made the same decision. The appellate court explained the reason for the acquittal by saying, “The place where the victim was hit by the train is likely to be a track, not a railroad crossing, so it seems impossible for Mr. A to anticipate and prevent the accident.” Attorney Kim Seok-gyun of Daeryun Law Firm (Limited), who represented Mr. A in the appeal trial, said, “According to Paragraph 4 of Article 254 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the facts of the indictment must be specified by specifying the date, place, and method of the crime,” and added, “ “The location is said to be ‘near the railroad crossing,’ but since the court determined that the location of the accident was a railroad track, the facts of the indictment are unspecified,” he said. He added, “It appears that these facts were reflected in the not guilty verdict.” [View full article] - "Accident of passenger suddenly jumping onto the tracks"... Station employee found not guilty on appeal (link)

Interview with attorney Kim Won-sang of Daeryun Corporate Legal Group Franchise Team Daeryun Law Firm Expects increase in legal demand related to franchise fees, 'Legal advice/financial accounting' Provided by Total Care Recently, it became known that Pizza Hut Korea applied to the court to initiate rehabilitation procedures, making it a hot topic.. 1This crisis at Pizza Hut Korea, a multi-generational franchise, was raised by franchise owners. 'Difference in franchise fee lawsuit'It started with a loss in.The difference in franchise fee is a profit added to the price of the goods provided by the head office to the franchisee., sort of 'distribution margin'It means.The court ruled that it was unfair for the headquarters to unfairly impose the difference in franchise fee without the consent of the franchise owner.. Currently, Pizza Hut Korea is going through the appeal process., If the ruling is finalized, store owners will be subject to 210Hundreds of millions of won must be returned.The impact of this ruling appears to be spreading throughout the franchise industry.. The controversy continues as other franchise owners are also known to be considering related lawsuits..While this industry turmoil is expected to continue for the time being,, Daeryun Corporate Legal Group recently announced that it will strengthen its franchise team and take a preemptive response.. In relation to this, we met and spoke with attorney Kim Won-sang, head of the Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Center, who has direct experience participating in the Korea Pizza Hut lawsuit..Next is a Q&A with Attorney Kim..Q. The fact that Pizza Hut Korea lost a lawsuit over franchise fees is becoming a hot topic.. What caused this lawsuit to start??A. Store owners who previously operated Pizza Hut as direct stores have opened franchise stores.(chain) While operating the business, the profit was significantly lower than expected, so the balance sheet was reviewed.. As a result, it was discovered that too much franchise money was being paid to the head office, and it appears that legal relief was necessary and a lawsuit was initiated..Q. In this ruling, the court found that the franchise fee was excessively charged and sided with the franchise owners.. What is the court's standard for making this decision??A. The issue in this case is not whether or not to receive the franchise fee difference. 'Is there a basis in the franchise agreement for receiving the difference in franchise fee?'am. however 1Sim and 2The trial court ruled that there was no basis for this..especially 2Regarding the reason for revising the Franchise Business Act related to franchise fee difference, the trial court said that it was to clarify that if there is a franchise fee differential, the related agreements must be entered in the contract..However, in this case, the franchise agreement and information disclosure document did not explicitly stipulate the difference in franchise fee.. Meanwhile, in a similar case, the Supreme Court ruled that even if information unfavorable to the franchise owner was included in the information disclosure statement and was provided to the franchise owner before signing the contract, it cannot be considered incorporated into the franchise contract..move on 2The ruling ruled that if the head office needs to compensate for the costs incurred in supplying raw and subsidiary materials, it needs to take steps to establish a basis, such as concluding a contract that reflects this or presenting cost calculation data to franchise owners to obtain consent..Q. It appears that the issue of difference in franchise fees between headquarters and franchise owners has been a common practice.. So it seems like the impact of this lawsuit will be significant., What do you think about the news that other franchise owners are also preparing a group lawsuit??A. In relation to the difference in franchise fee, the matters stated in the information disclosure statement are insufficient or cannot be considered to be incorporated into the franchise contract by themselves., Due to previous practice, it is highly likely that the contract concluded between the head office and the franchise owner will not have detailed provisions on the difference in franchise fee., Considering that franchise owners tend to switch from running directly managed stores and have detailed information on profits and expenses, it is expected that franchise owners will be able to receive sufficient compensation through a group lawsuit..Q. On the other hand, some franchise companies responded with embarrassment.. There are also concerns that we may be caught up in a class action lawsuit., How does headquarters need to respond??A. First of all, franchise headquarters should not enter into poor contracts with franchisees.. Calculation details for cost reduction or preservation must be explained to store owners in an easy-to-understand manner and then clearly stated in the franchise agreement to minimize the possibility of disputes..In addition, detailed conversations held with store owners at the time of signing the contract, It seems necessary to collect receipts and tax invoices that can reveal the circumstances under which the franchise fee was received and claim that the difference in franchise fee was included..Q. So, conversely, what are the things that franchise owners should pay close attention to when signing a contract with the head office??A. What contract terms did franchise owners hear from headquarters when signing a contract?, Have you been specifically introduced to the information stated in the information disclosure statement?, It is important to check whether the specific details were explained in the process of paying the franchise fee.. Therefore, the information disclosure statement, If you have a franchise agreement and a statement of franchise fees received from the head office, you will need that statement..The head office has a professional understanding of the business and possesses sufficient important information.. Also, since this is a group of experts who are proficient in finance and accounting, it is recommended that store owners seek help from experts such as lawyers.. Are there any violations of related laws and regulations regarding the franchise business?, What are the basic regulations that can guarantee profits for franchise owners?, A detailed review of the franchise agreement is necessary to minimize disputes that may arise in the business, including the extent of predictable costs to be borne..Q. As franchise owners and franchise headquarters are very interested in unfair practices, legal demand is expected to increase.. In line with this, Daeryun also strengthened the franchise team within the corporate legal group., What specific preparations are you making??A. This lawsuit began with franchise owners carefully examining their financial statements.. Considering this, the Daeryun Franchise Team provides franchise contracts to franchise companies based on the expertise it has accumulated through consulting on various corporate accounting, finances, and taxes., Provides legal analysis of information disclosure statements. In addition, we provide consulting on the financial structure of franchise owners..Q. In this dispute, what legal improvements do you think are needed to balance the responsibilities of the headquarters and protect the rights of franchisees??A. Franchise business is a business that anyone can easily start, so it has the characteristic of being independent of the type of industry.. Therefore, I think it is necessary for authorities to quickly improve regulations in line with the development of related industries..Q. Lastly, is there anything you would like to say to those who are experiencing franchise-related lawsuits or disputes??A. Legal litigation may seem far away, but when you become a party to a dispute, you are bound to be involved in the dispute for a long time, which has a huge impact on your daily life.. Daeryun is a total care system that provides not only legal advice but also financial and accounting advice, and can provide sufficient help to both franchise owners and headquarters..In particular, in the case of franchise owners, a quick solution is needed because it is a problem that directly affects their livelihood and money.. Daeryun has the expertise to come up with an effective solution one step ahead of a dispute before it escalates, so please contact us to diagnose the problem.. [View full article] Tax Ilbo - “To avoid lawsuits for difference in franchise fees…disputes must be minimized by reviewing the franchise agreement” (Shortcut) Segye Ilbo - How to avoid lawsuits for difference in franchise fees... “Disputes must be minimized by reviewing the franchise agreement” (Shortcut)

A woman's story was told that she was asked to terminate her pregnancy by a woman who had an affair with her boyfriend and was subjected to verbal abuse. The expert pointed out, “This could amount to criminal coercion.” The day before, on the 2nd, KBS joy's 'Ask Me Anything' featured the story of A, a woman suffering from depression due to abortion and her boyfriend's affair. Ms. A started dating her boyfriend at the chicken restaurant where she worked part-time in 2016. She had been dating her boyfriend for six years, breaking up and getting back together, but they eventually became close enough to end up living together. After living together, she became pregnant and had two children. However, the boyfriend was seeing another woman, B, without A's knowledge. He continued to date in secret, hiding the fact that he was dating Mr. A from the other woman. But is there a way to get caught if the tail is long? Person A later found out that her boyfriend was cheating on her and demanded that she end the relationship with Person B. Accordingly, the boyfriend borrowed money from Mr. B and postponed ending the relationship, asking him to wait until he repaid the money. The boyfriend did not break up with person B even though person A was pregnant. Instead, it is reported that Mr. B sent text messages to her boyfriend, saying, “Tell your girlfriend to have an abortion surgery,” and “Wouldn’t it be okay if I get pregnant too?” Ms. A eventually underwent abortion surgery. Mr. A then claimed that Mr. B left messages on his SNS (social media) such as “You are XX” and “Your baby is crying in heaven. I am so happy that your baby is dead.” Person A complained of damage, saying, “I am currently getting along well with my boyfriend, but I was diagnosed with depression because of that incident,” and “I want to escape the hurt.” Regarding this story, on the 3rd, lawyer Kwak Ji-yeon of Daeryun Law Firm advised, “If there was content in the verbal abuse that could be considered a threat, it could be considered criminal coercion, and you can also claim compensation for the illegal act.” At the same time, he added, “If social media (SNS) is open to an unspecified number of people, a violation of the Internet Act (defamation) is naturally established,” and “it appears that a claim for compensation will be possible.” [View full article] - A woman who stole her boyfriend and forced him to “get rid of his child”… Expert: “This could amount to criminal coercion” (Shortcut)

Recently, illegal gambling by youth has emerged as a serious social problem. As a result of the National Police Agency's special crackdown on cyber gambling from September 25 last year to November 31 this year, a total of 9,971 people were arrested, of which 4,715, or nearly half, were teenagers. Adolescents' values ​​are not fully formed, so their way of thinking and judgment are often immature compared to adults. During these times, not only is the risk of falling into gambling greater, but it is also very likely to lead to psychological addiction. This not only causes financial losses but also has a serious impact on overall life, including academics, relationships, and family life. In particular, young people often indulge in gambling in cyberspace. This is because not many places require a separate adult verification process, so the sign-up process is simple and can be easily accessed using smartphones, etc. In addition to the guaranteed anonymity of being able to enjoy gambling without the knowledge of adults around you, such as parents or teachers, another reason is that it is easy to see advertisements for illegal gambling sites online. Anyone who gambles, including cyber gambling, is subject to a fine of up to 10 million won under Article 246 of the Criminal Act. If the act is repeated, a prison sentence of up to 3 years or a fine of up to 20 million won will be imposed. If you operate a gambling house, the punishment is further strengthened and you are subject to imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to 30 million won. In general, minors are often sentenced to protective custody unless they commit a violent crime. As for gambling, if it is your first offense, you can seek leniency. However, if you have gambled multiple times or run a gambling house, the story may be different. In fact, quite a few young people are involved in operating gambling sites, and in this case, the crime of opening a gambling site is applied and even minors can be put on trial. This means that, unlike a juvenile protection trial, the charges will be acknowledged and a criminal record will remain. In fact, last year, the Uijeongbu District Prosecutors' Office indicted a group of people who operated an illegal gambling site, 12 of whom were teenagers. Therefore, if you are suspected of opening a gambling site, you must actively respond by developing a strategy that suits your situation. To achieve this, it is necessary to seek help from a legal expert such as a lawyer as soon as possible. Also, even if you commit a crime for the first time and can seek leniency, this does not mean that legal action will not be taken. Therefore, an active response is needed to receive a lighter disposition. Therefore, in this case as well, it is best to proceed with legal procedures by establishing a thorough strategy with the assistance of experts. [View full article] - Illegal gambling by teenagers can lead to criminal trials... Response required from the beginning (click here)

Prosecutors sent to prosecutors for ‘suspicion of special injury’ “Accidental crime while faithfully caring for him...Reflection and consideration of settlement with victim” A case has emerged in which a man in his 70s who was sent to prosecutors on charges of injuring his hospitalized ex-wife by swinging a glass bottle was not indicted. It was confirmed that the Eastern Branch of the Busan District Prosecutors' Office decided not to indict, deferring the indictment of Mr. A, who was suspected of special injuries, in October of last year. In September 2024, he was handed over to the prosecution on charges of special injury for injuring his ex-wife while she was hospitalized by hitting him with a glass cosmetics bottle. At the time, it was found that Mr. A was experiencing financial difficulties surrounding the issue of collecting his ex-wife's hospital expenses. The extreme stress led to frequent drinking, and on the day of the incident, Mr. A was also drunk and hit his ex-wife with a bottle, and the nurse who discovered it reported it to the police. Mr. A admitted all the charges, but appealed for leniency, saying he committed the crime accidentally. The prosecution investigating the case decided not to indict. The prosecution said, "The charges are acknowledged. Injuring the victim is not a light matter," but judged, "It appears that the crime occurred accidentally while Mr. A was faithfully caring for the victim." The prosecution then stated the reason for the postponement of the indictment, saying, "We take into account the fact that the victim does not want punishment and that Mr. A has acknowledged the charges and is reflecting on them." Attorney Seung-chan Lee of Daeryun Law Firm (Limited), who defended suspect A, said, “After the incident occurred, Mr. A worked hard to raise money for the victim’s hospital expenses by looking into support programs such as fundraising groups, and as a result, he was able to complete the payment,” he said. “As a result of emphasizing the circumstances of the incident as well as the subsequent circumstances, we were able to obtain the result of a deferred prosecution.” [View full article] - A man in his 70s who fell ill while taking care of his hospitalized ex-wife... ‘Indictment deferred’ (link)

Mr. A was accused by the relevant agency of being an unqualified businessman... “Written at the request of the company,” the prosecution claimed. “It is unclear whether the written service contract was actually concluded.” A worker accused of carrying out subcontracting work without registering construction qualifications was cleared by the prosecution. On the 7th of last month, the Namyangju Branch of the Uijeongbu District Prosecutors' Office decided not to prosecute worker A, who was sent on charges of violating the Framework Act on the Construction Industry. Mr. A, who worked as a human resources team leader at a construction company, was not registered by related organizations such as the Seoul Regional Construction Management Office. He was accused of construction. This is because the fact that subcontracting work was carried out without registering as a construction business was confirmed through service contracts, etc. They emphasized that the quotation submitted by Mr. A to the company was also confirmed. However, Mr. A denied the charges. He said he was just an employee belonging to the company and not a subcontractor. At the same time, Mr. A claimed that the contract was written at the request of an official from the company where he worked. In addition, Mr. A explained that at the time of writing the document, an official from the company mentioned the issue of severance pay for those who left the company midway and asked for his signature to resolve the issue. At the same time, he emphasized that the contract was drawn up after persuading the relevant person that there would be no disadvantage, and that there was no fact that the quotation was written at all. The prosecution determined that Mr. A was a worker who simply provided labor. The prosecution said, “If you look at the written service contract, there is no specific construction details written down,” and “It is unclear whether the contract was actually concluded because Mr. A’s company is listed in both the supplier and contractor categories.” He added, “Even the large amount stated in the quotation has never been deposited into Mr. A’s account.” Considering these details, Mr. A cannot be concluded as a separate subcontractor.” Daeryun Law Firm (Limited), which represented Mr. A. Attorney Jeong Jae-bong said, “When the issue of severance pay arose, the company forced Mr. A to sign a contract and claimed it was a service relationship.” He added, “In addition, the company once filed a lawsuit seeking compensation on the grounds that they had paid severance pay on Mr. A’s behalf, and they lost this case as well.” He added, “It appears that the prosecution also accepted the result of this lawsuit and acquitted the case.” [View full article] - I'm just a worker... Accused of being an ‘unqualified businessman’? (Shortcut)

After the first ruling in 2022, two similar cases this year specify payment for the same work as regular workers. As legal precedents increase, the period for adjusting corporate regulations is shortened and the basis for payment is established. Courts are continuing to judge that if hired interns performed the same work as regular workers during their working period, they should be paid the same performance bonus. The idea is that since people do the same work, they should not be treated differently in performance bonus payments. There are observations that the court decision may result in changes to each company's internship system regulations in the future. This means that it can indicate a clear direction, such as reducing the number of interns themselves or establishing new performance-based payment regulations. According to the legal community on the 1st, the Seoul Central District Court's Civil Settlement Division 48 ruled in a lawsuit for damages due to discriminatory treatment filed by Mr. An experiential internship system was operated from 2009 to 2013. Afterwards, in accordance with government guidelines, the ‘Recruitment Intern’ system was introduced in 2014. Every year, the corporation paid performance bonuses to its employees in accordance with the compensation regulations. However, when interns and contract workers were excluded from payment, Mr. A and others filed a lawsuit, saying, “Even though we performed the same work as regular workers, performance bonuses were not paid during the internship period.” This is because failure to pay bonuses for doing the same work is a violation of Article 6 of the Labor Standards Act or Article 8 of the Fixed-Term Contract Act. The issue was whether the target of comparison for hired interns should be regular employees of the construction company. The court judged hired interns to be temporary workers, different from general trainees. The court pointed out that there was no essential difference from the work performed by regular workers, saying, “Recruited interns were assigned independent tasks like regular workers when they joined the corporation, and performed the same tasks even after being converted to full-time workers after completing the internship period.” The court ruled that the construction company violated the fixed-term law. Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Fixed-Term Contract Act stipulates that “an employer shall not treat workers differently on the grounds that they are fixed-term workers compared to workers who have entered into an employment contract with an indefinite period to engage in the same or similar work at the relevant business or workplace.” A month earlier, in September, the 13th Civil Division of the Daegu District Court also partially won in favor of a portion of the plaintiffs in a claim for damages due to discrimination filed by 330 of the company’s interns against the Korea Real Estate Board, with a similar effect to the Korea Mint Corporation ruling. Judgment was made. The Daegu District Court also ruled that the workers subject to comparison for hired interns are regular workers. The 12th Civil Division of the Daegu District Court also sided with the interns in the lawsuit filed by interns employed by Korea Gas Corporation against the corporation in 2022. This was the first case where it was ruled that it is natural to pay performance bonuses to employed interns if they have continued to perform work similar to that of full-time employees. Dong-Han Lim, a spokesperson for Dongin Law Firm, said, “Employed interns can be considered an intermediate step in converting to full-time workers at private or public companies,” and explained, “The relevant rulings clearly state that they discriminated against temporary workers without any reason, as they are considered to be in violation of the anti-discrimination law.” Intae Bang, attorney at Daeryun Law Firm, said, “Interns who are employed can be considered an intermediate step in converting to full-time workers at private or public companies.” “Employment rules or regulations that do not provide any allowances to interns become illegal company regulations and become ineffective,” he predicted. “Ultimately, due to the violation of Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Fixed-Term Act regarding non-payment of performance bonuses, this will become a claim for compensation for damages resulting from illegal acts, creating a risk that the corporation or the company will have to compensate.” He then suggested, “If there is a move to file a lawsuit like the Mint and Mint Corporation, it is most realistic to consult with the labor union in advance to prevent litigation costs.” Some predict that these rulings may lead to a series of proactive measures by companies. In fact, some construction companies are moving towards clarifying the basis for payment by creating a new clause in the intern employment contract regarding whether performance bonuses will be paid. On the other hand, there is also the possibility of a reduction in the hiring internship system. From a company's perspective, this system is implemented because it needs a period of time to screen excellent employees before converting them to full-time employees, but as it has been decided that the recruitment-type internship period is viewed along the same lines as regular employees, the period can be shortened as much as possible. [View full article] - Companies in emergency due to successive rulings saying, “Performance bonuses must also be paid to hired interns” (Shortcut)