Press

A man who cared like family for a colleague of several decades when the colleague fell ill with cancer, and who received a gift of the colleague's assets, was reported by the colleague's family on charges including fraud, but received a non-indictment disposition.According to the legal community on the 1st, the Uijeongbu District Prosecutors' Office in July declined to indict a man in his 50s, identified as A, who had been reported on charges including fraud and extortion, citing insufficient evidence.A was accused of deceiving his colleague B in 2014 into changing the beneficiary of a health insurance policy and transferring about 550 million won into his own account.The complainants were B's bereaved family, who claimed that A had threatened and coerced B to extort the money.However, A denied all the charges. He said that when B fell ill with cancer, he and his wife cared for B in place of B's family, and so B voluntarily handed over the assets.He also added that because B had experienced an extreme property dispute with his siblings during his lifetime after his parents' death, B did not want his bereaved family to inherit the estate after his own death.The prosecution accepted A's argument. There had been legal disputes between B and his family, such as a lawsuit claiming return of a statutory reserve of inheritance, and in the witness examination the prosecution secured a statement that B had closed his own account and used another person's account to avoid provisional attachment.Given that it was A, not the bereaved family, who first learned of B's death and took charge of the arrangements, the prosecution found A's claim that he had cared for the cancer-stricken B to be credible.Attorney Jeong Jaebong of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented A, said, "We faithfully demonstrated the point that A was the person who was most devoted during the deceased's illness. We focused on proving, through objective circumstances, that A had not deceived the deceased and that the assets were gifted in accordance with a complete and voluntary intention, which enabled us to obtain the non-indictment decision." Reporter Jeong Cheoluk [Read the Full Article] Man in His 50s Who Cared for a Cancer-Stricken Colleague and Received a Gift, Reported for Fraud by Bereaved Family…Prosecution Declines to Indict for Insufficient Evidence (Go)

Cross-check evidence and statements in advance…Review investigation response through a mock interrogation"Answer based on confirmed facts rather than speculation" In a criminal case, what statement a suspect gives during a police investigation can affect the subsequent direction of the investigation and the response. In particular, as the police-centered investigation system is strengthened, the importance of the initial response—such as cross-checking one's own memory against objective evidence and organizing the facts before the investigation—is growing.Attorney Lee Taeseung of Daeryun Law Firm said on the 1st, "Responding to a criminal case begins not after entering the courtroom but before the police investigation," and, "The process of meticulously cross-checking objective materials against one's own memory and organizing the facts before the investigation is important."Article 244 of the 'Criminal Procedure Act' provides that the suspect's statement is recorded in the suspect interrogation protocol, and that after the suspect reads it or has it read to them, they may request additions, deletions, or changes regarding parts that differ from the facts. Accordingly, it is necessary not only to carefully check the protocol's content during the investigation but also to sufficiently organize one's statement even before the investigation. In particular, in cases where the situation at the time is a key issue—such as quasi-rape—one must specifically examine the degree of intoxication, the other party's condition, and the route and time of movement. If objective materials such as CCTV, card payment records, and communication records have been secured, one must also check whether they match one's memory.Attorney Lee explained, "As time passes, it can be difficult to remember all of the circumstances at the time accurately," and, "It is necessary to distinguish the parts you remember clearly, the parts confirmed by objective materials, and the parts you do not remember precisely."One must be especially careful about answering, based on speculation, parts that one does not remember. This is because, if a discrepancy later arises with the existing statement when new materials such as CCTV or payment records are confirmed, it can lead to a situation where one must explain the credibility of the statement.Conducting a mock suspect interrogation before the investigation is also a method. By anticipating questions that could come up in the actual investigation and explaining the circumstances at the time, one can distinguish the parts one remembers precisely from the unclear parts.Attorney Lee said, "A mock interrogation is not a process of crafting answers favorable or unfavorable to the investigative authorities," and, "Its purpose is to prevent one from answering by speculating about parts one does not remember, and to check whether the objective evidence and the statement match."Securing evidence is also an indispensable part of the initial response. If there are materials that may be deleted after a certain period—such as CCTV of a place visited at the time of the incident—rather than waiting for the investigative authorities to secure them, one needs to first check whether preservation is possible. The secured materials can be organized by time and place and used to objectively reconstruct the circumstances at the time.With the amended 'Criminal Procedure Act' set to take effect next month, the role of police investigation is expected to become even more important. Accordingly, Attorney Lee explained that in criminal cases as well, the initial response of reviewing the facts and evidence from the police investigation stage is important.Attorney Lee emphasized, "In the end, what is important in a police investigation is not speaking well but accurately conveying confirmed facts," and, "Before entering the interrogation room, you need to sufficiently cross-check the evidence and your memory, and prepare by distinguishing the uncertain parts as uncertain."Reporter Jeong Yejin yejin0311@inews24.com [Read the Full Article] [Legal Spotlight]⑭ Police Investigation: A Prepared Statement Changes the Direction of a Case (Go)

MOU with MAQ Legal…Supporting Korean companies' entry into the GCC in energy, infrastructure, and more Amid growing entry and investment by Korean companies into the Middle East, Daeryun Law Firm and its U.S. partner firm SJKP have established a cooperative relationship with a local Omani law firm. They are strengthening the legal support needed for Korean companies' entry into Oman and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region, centered on energy and infrastructure.Daeryun Law Firm announced on the 31st that SJKP had signed a strategic memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Al Maamary, Al Abri & Co. (MAQ Legal), an Omani law firm specializing in corporate law and projects.MAQ Legal is a law firm based in Oman that operates in the fields of corporate law and projects. It has experience providing legal services for power plants and desalination and infrastructure projects of Korean companies such as Hyundai Group, Doosan Enerbility, GS E&C, and Korea Western Power.Under this agreement, the two sides will broaden the scope of cooperation from traditional energy such as LNG (liquefied natural gas) and crude oil to renewable energy, green hydrogen, logistics, and information and communications technology (ICT).The specific areas of cooperation include cross-border investment and foreign direct investment (FDI), cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&A) and joint ventures (JV), and corporate establishment and the building of local business structures. They will also jointly provide the legal advice needed for energy, oil, and gas projects and for renewable energy, infrastructure, and construction projects.They will also cooperate in finance and project financing (PF), local regulation and compliance, and international arbitration and inter-state dispute response. The two firms plan to connect clients with each other and, where necessary, jointly provide legal services.They will also expand the provision of information to companies. For Korean companies, they will provide joint seminars and content introducing Oman's investment environment, energy and infrastructure projects, and local regulations. They will also jointly support the legal services needed for Middle Eastern companies to enter the Korean and U.S. markets.Kim Gukil, CEO of Daeryun, said, "In Middle East business, accurately grasping local systems and regulations and proactively managing risks determines success or failure," adding, "This agreement enables us to provide advanced global legal solutions to Korean companies pursuing entry into Oman and the Middle East region."SJKP, established in New York, U.S., last year, has been expanding the scope of its cooperation with overseas law firms and consulting companies, centered on international disputes, investment, and taxation. Daeryun plans to leverage its overseas network, including SJKP, to expand legal support for Korean companies' overseas business.Reporter Hwang Jeongwon (garden@sidae.com) [Read the Full Article] Daeryun & SJKP Join Hands with Omani Law Firm to Tap the Middle East Legal Market (Go)

The government's approach to managing medical narcotics is changing. From July 2026, the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety is operating a 365-day, round-the-clock monitoring system using artificial intelligence (AI) and is conducting special surveillance of medical anesthetics with a high risk of addiction and misuse, such as propofol. Even before this, the prescription and administration records of medical narcotics have been managed through the Narcotics Information Management System (NIMS). Now, however, the surveillance system is becoming more sophisticated, analyzing accumulated data with AI to screen for anomalies suspected of misuse or illegal diversion and connecting these to on-site inspections. For medical institutions, it may no longer be enough simply to have "prescribed narcotics lawfully." This is because they are now practicing in an environment where data on to whom, for what condition, at what dosage, and for how long a prescription was issued is accumulated and analyzed. So what must medical staff check, and what must they prepare? If AI detects an anomaly, is it immediately an illegal prescription? First, there is a point to clearly distinguish. The fact that a particular medical institution uses a large amount of propofol, or that zolpidem is prescribed to the same patient over a long period, does not in itself constitute a violation of the Narcotics Control Act. Medical narcotics are drugs that are strictly managed because of their potential for misuse, while at the same time being drugs that can be legally used for treatment. Therefore, the statistical fact that a prescription volume is high and the legal judgment that an individual prescription is unlawful are not the same. An important function of AI round-the-clock monitoring is to find anomalies that differ from general patterns among vast amounts of narcotics-handling information and thereby select inspection targets more effectively. The problem is what comes next. If an anomaly is confirmed and leads to an administrative investigation or criminal investigation, the medical staff must ultimately explain whether there was a medical necessity to prescribe and administer that drug to the patient concerned. Therefore, from a medical institution's standpoint, the most dangerous situation is not simply a high prescription volume, but rather a case where the prescription volume is high yet the reason for it is hard to confirm from the medical records. Medical narcotics: what is regulated? When medical staff prescribe medical narcotics, they must distinguish and examine several issues. The first is the medical purpose and the appropriateness of the prescription. A medical narcotics-handling practitioner may administer or prescribe narcotics or psychotropic drugs for medical purposes. However, administration or prescription that deviates from a medical purpose, or repeated or excessive prescriptions suspected of misuse, may become problematic under the Narcotics Control Act. In particular, the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety has established separate safe-use standards for ingredients with a high risk of misuse—such as propofol, zolpidem, appetite suppressants, and medical narcotic analgesics—to encourage appropriate prescribing. Therefore, rather than prescribing simply because a drug is approved, medical staff must also examine the indication, single dose, daily dose, duration of administration, whether it is used in combination, and the patient's past administration history. There is a caveat here as well. The mere fact of deviating from the Ministry's safe-use standards does not immediately make every prescription subject to criminal punishment. This is because, depending on the patient's condition, a prescription different from the standard may be medically necessary. Conversely, the mere fact of formally complying with the safe-use standards does not make every prescription lawful either. In the end, the medical grounds for which the prescription was necessary for the individual patient and the actual content of the examination are the key. Confirmation of administration history now expanded to zolpidem—the pre-prescription confirmation procedure is important From June 19, 2026, zolpidem was added to the ingredients subject to the medical narcotics administration-history confirmation system. The medical narcotics administration-history confirmation system is a system by which a doctor, before prescribing, checks a patient's medical narcotics administration history over the past year to prevent so-called "medical shopping," in which patients go from one medical institution to another to be prescribed the same or similar drugs, as well as excessive or duplicate prescriptions. What is important for medical staff is that the same confirmation obligation does not apply to all medical narcotics. One must distinguish, by target ingredient, whether confirmation is a legal obligation or a recommendation, and each time the system changes, one must check which category the drug one is currently prescribing falls into. In particular, if it is confirmed that a patient has been prescribed the same ingredient at another hospital, or if a record of repeated prescriptions from multiple medical institutions within a short period is confirmed, one must be careful about repeating the previous prescription while ignoring this. Therefore, medical institutions need to establish internal procedures determining for which drugs the administration history must be checked when prescribing, who checks it, and where the results are recorded. A single line of record saying 'insomnia' may not be enough In medical narcotics cases, the ultimately important material is the medical record. For example, suppose that in the medical record of a patient prescribed zolpidem over a long period, only 'insomnia' is recorded at each visit. Even if the patient's insomnia was in fact severe and required continuous drug treatment, if the reason the same dosage was repeatedly prescribed over months or years cannot be confirmed from the records, it becomes difficult to explain the medical necessity of the prescription at the investigation stage. Therefore, for patients with repeated or long-term prescriptions, it is desirable to record not simply the diagnosis but also whether and to what degree the symptoms persist, the effect of previous prescriptions, adverse reactions, whether other treatment methods were attempted, the reason for maintaining, increasing, or decreasing the dose, and the necessity of continued prescription, so that they can be confirmed from the records. In particular, when a patient repeatedly requests an early prescription or dose increase, or requests a re-prescription claiming to have lost the drug, or when prescription records from multiple medical institutions are confirmed, such circumstances and the medical staff's judgment need to be left in the records. The same goes for propofol. Rather than merely recording the procedure name and the amount administered, one should be able to confirm what procedure required sedation, and if repeated administration occurred, what the reason was, and what the patient's condition and the course of administration were. What matters is not the quantity of records. What matters is whether a third party, later looking at the records, can understand why the doctor made that prescription at the time. Even if the prescription is appropriate, an erroneous NIMS report becomes a separate issue There is a part medical staff commonly overlook. One may think, "There is no problem since I appropriately prescribed the drug the patient needed," but with medical narcotics, the appropriateness of the prescription and the appropriateness of the handling report may be treated as separate issues. A narcotics handler must report to the Narcotics Information Management System the handling records prescribed by law—such as purchase, use, administration, dispensing, transfer, acquisition, and disposal—of narcotics. Therefore, even if the actual administration was carried out normally, a problem may arise if the NIMS report is omitted, if the actual amount used differs from the reported amount, or if the inventory on the books does not match the actual inventory. In particular, medical institutions that use injectables such as propofol must be even more careful. If the EMR shows that one vial was used but NIMS reports a different quantity, or if the disposal process of leftover narcotics after use cannot be confirmed, or if the actual stored inventory and the system inventory continuously fail to match, it may not end as a mere administrative error. Therefore, a medical institution needs to have a structure in which the EMR prescription amount → actual dispensing amount → actual administration amount → remaining/disposed amount → NIMS reported amount → actual inventory amount are all connected to one another. What is problematic if you violate the rules? Depending on the type, a violation of medical narcotics management may lead to criminal punishment and administrative disposition under the Narcotics Control Act, and may also lead to dispositions that directly affect the operation of the medical institution, such as suspension of narcotics-handling operations. In particular, the act of administering narcotics or psychotropic drugs or issuing prescriptions in deviation from a medical purpose, illegal handling by a non-narcotics-handler, and false or fraudulent reporting or repeated violations of the reporting obligation may, depending on the case, lead to criminal proceedings. In addition, cases where a medical institution issues a narcotics prescription even though it did not actually examine the patient, or prescribes under another person's name, or where a medical practitioner self-administers an ingredient whose self-administration is prohibited or issues a prescription for themselves, may give rise to separate legal issues. Therefore, medical institutions must not view narcotics-related issues merely as a matter of "prescription-volume management." They should view the medical necessity of the prescription, patient verification and examination, confirmation of administration history, actual administration, handling reports, and storage, inventory, and disposal as a single management system. What medical institutions should check now In the era of AI round-the-clock monitoring, what medical institutions should do is not to uniformly reduce prescriptions. First, they need to make a list of the medical narcotics currently used at the institution and check, for each drug, the latest safe-use standards and whether it is subject to administration-history confirmation. Next, they should independently review prescription records over a recent period to select patients with potential long-term prescriptions, high-dose prescriptions, repeated short-term prescriptions, early re-prescriptions, and duplicate prescriptions across multiple institutions, and check whether the medical records contain grounds to explain such prescriptions. The EMR also needs to be reorganized. For repeat-prescription patients, it should be possible to record symptoms and treatment effects, adverse reactions, whether administration history was checked, and the reason for maintaining or changing the prescription; and a method of alerting medical staff when a high-risk prescription is made can also be considered. A medical institution that directly stores and administers drugs such as propofol should also separately check its NIMS management. It should regularly compare the actual inventory with the system inventory and, if a discrepancy arises, identify the cause. The disposal procedure and the person in charge also need to be clearly designated. Finally, such work must not be left to a single specific employee. It is necessary to reorganize internal work procedures and establish a system of regular self-inspection so that doctors, nursing staff, administrative staff, and the person in charge of narcotics handling and reporting can all operate under the same standards throughout prescription-administration-reporting-inventory-disposal. In the AI era, what matters is not 'prescribing less' but 'explainable prescribing' As regulation of medical narcotics is strengthened, there is also a concern that medical staff may excessively hesitate even over necessary prescriptions. However, it is inaccurate to understand the purpose of AI round-the-clock monitoring as "a system to punish doctors who prescribe a lot of narcotics." Data can be a starting point for detecting anomalies, but the appropriateness of an individual prescription must ultimately be evaluated through the patient's condition and the medical staff's medical judgment. However, that judgment may not be sufficiently supported by after-the-fact memory or explanation alone. It is an entirely different matter for medical staff to explain, after an investigation has begun, that "at the time it was a medically necessary prescription," versus being able to confirm that judgment process from records written at the time of treatment. Therefore, the question medical staff who prescribe medical narcotics should ask themselves is simple. It is not "How much can I prescribe?" but "Can I explain, with records, why I prescribed this drug to this patient at this dosage for this period?" Now that AI-based round-the-clock monitoring of medical narcotics has begun, the first thing a medical institution should do is not to reduce prescriptions unconditionally. It is to make necessary prescriptions for patients who need them, while building a system in which the entire process—from that medical judgment to actual administration, NIMS reporting, and inventory management—is connected through records. |Contribution| Attorney Yoon Soyoung, Daeryun Law Firm [Read the Full Article] [Contribution] AI Is Watching? Prescribing Narcotics: Legal Standards Medical Staff Should Know (Go)

Suspected of embezzling 3 million won in students' academy fees…'Formal trial requested' against summary order of a fine- The court: "No objective evidence to prove embezzlement…ample motive to file a false complaint amid a deteriorated relationship" An instructor who was put on trial on charges of embezzling academy fees was found not guilty.The Pyeongtaek Branch of the Suwon District Court found a woman in her 30s, identified as A, who had been put on trial on charges of occupational embezzlement, not guilty on the 21st of last month.A was accused of embezzling by receiving about 3 million won in academy fees, wired into an account under her own name, from a parent of a student at the academy where she worked in 2022.B, the academy's director, claimed that A had deceived him and concealed the embezzlement. B said that when he confirmed that one student's tuition had not been deposited and asked why, A lied that she had not collected it because the student's circumstances were difficult, and that, believing this, he instructed her not to collect the fee, but that behind his back she pocketed the money.A denied the charges. She countered that while it was true she had received the academy fees into a personal account, it had been done with B's approval due to tax issues and the like, and that she had not hidden this fact even from her fellow teachers, having informed them. She further emphasized that it was rather B who, in conflict with her over issues such as unpaid wages, had filed a retaliatory complaint in response.The prosecution, deeming A's charges established, requested a summary order for a fine of 1 million won, and the court granted it. However, A, refusing to accept this, requested a formal trial.The court, having examined the case, found A not guilty. The court said, "Even though the payment record for checking fees could be viewed by all teachers, the victim merely claimed that the relevant student's payment record was left blank and failed to submit any objective evidence to prove this," adding, "Rather, it is judged that within an extremely deteriorated relationship in which the two were engaged in litigation, there was reason to file a complaint with content contrary to the facts."The court added, "The victim's claim that he waived the fee based solely on the defendant's word is also difficult to accept as common sense," and, "If the victim's claim were true, the defendant would have had to lie to her colleagues as well about not collecting the fee, but the fact that she instead informed them she was collecting the fee directly due to tax issues shows the defendant's claim is more credible."Attorney Lee Jiwon of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented A, explained, "For occupational embezzlement to be established, a person entrusted with keeping another's property must, in breach of their occupational duty, embezzle that property or refuse to return it," and, "By proving that A received the academy fees with B's approval and the background of the false complaint filed out of spite, we were able to overturn the unfavorable summary order and secure a not-guilty verdict." jckim99@sportsseoul.comReporter Kim Jongchul [Read the Full Article] "Embezzled Academy Fees" — Instructor Suspected of Embezzlement Found 'Not Guilty' at Formal Trial (Go)

Foreign attorneys Kim Mia and Ahn Junyong, together with customs specialist Myung Jaeho (Daeryun Law Firm), report on cross-border legal matters. Establishing a C-Corp (stock corporation) in states such as Delaware, U.S.—the so-called "Flip"—has come to be regarded as the standard formula for K-startups entering the U.S. market. It is a strategy aimed at breaking into Silicon Valley and attracting investment from global venture capital (VC). This is because, unlike in Korea, the U.S. incorporation process has no burdensome minimum capital requirements and is simplified to the point that it can be completed simply by submitting online documents through a local agency. However, the moment the founders and core development staff of a company that has relatively easily completed its U.S. incorporation apply for visas to fully launch their business locally, they run into an enormous wall.Many companies think of visa issues as merely issuing a travel pass for business trips or as practical paperwork for the HR department. But to the examiners at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the early-stage U.S. corporation of a startup with no physical office and no clear local revenue appears to be nothing more than a paper company. Once you have erected the skeleton that is the corporation, the next question is who will legally remain and run the business. Visa strategy is precisely the practical first gateway to U.S. expansion and the core of management strategy.The Trap of the Intra-Company Transferee Visa: Proving a Physical Office and Business Substance The first option a startup considers for U.S. expansion is the intra-company transferee visa (L-1), which dispatches executives or core personnel from the Korean headquarters to the U.S. corporation. In the case of a newly established U.S. corporation, given that the business is in its early stages, a one-year L-1 visa used to be granted relatively easily. However, amid the recent trend of overall tightening of the Trump administration's immigration policy, the immigration authorities' screening has also become extremely stringent.The most common pitfall that trips people up is securing an office. To save on initial costs, many companies contract a non-resident address (Virtual Office) at a shared office (WeWork, etc.) or register the CEO's home as the business address. In such cases, immigration authorities mercilessly issue a Request for Evidence (RFE) or reject the visa outright. This is because if an independent physical space where the dispatched personnel will actually work and conduct business cannot be proven, the substance of the business is not recognized.Even if you obtain a one-year L-1 visa and enter the U.S., the real hurdle is the screening for the visa extension one year later. At that point, USCIS strictly examines whether the U.S. corporation has grown to a sufficient organizational scale to substitute for the Korean headquarters, and whether the executive who received the visa has hired enough local employees to perform a managerial role. Countless founders, unable to meet these requirements, are forced to pack their bags and return home in tears after just one year.The Dilemma of the Investment Visa: The Risk of Equity Dilution from Attracting Investment The alternative cited to the L-1 is the small-scale investment visa (E-2). It is issued to investors or key employees who wish to conduct business by investing the company's capital into the U.S. corporation. One of the key requirements of the E-2 visa is the nationality requirement. That is, a Korean national (or Korean corporation) must own at least 50% of the equity in the U.S. corporation.Given a startup's business model, the E-2 visa easily falls into contradiction. This is because continuously attracting investment from local VCs or angel investors is a startup's supreme task. If a startup successfully attracts Series A and B investment and a large influx of U.S. capital flows in, the equity held by the founders and the Korean headquarters is inevitably diluted below 50%. Paradoxically, at the most successful moment when the local business is most on track, the nationality requirement may be lost and the E-2 visa may be revoked. The core personnel who must report to work the very next day are put at risk of overnight becoming illegal residents.In addition, the "Substantial Investment" required by immigration authorities has no absolute monetary threshold, but in practice a benchmark of around $80,000 to $200,000 is cited depending on the industry. However, this is not satisfied merely by wiring money into a U.S. bank account. Only capital that has already been spent and put at risk (At-risk) for business operations—such as office leasing, equipment purchases, and marketing—is recognized as investment.The Extraordinary Ability Visa and the Professional Visa: A Gamble Betting on Individual Capability Because the corporate requirements are demanding, some companies choose the extraordinary ability visa (O-1) as a detour by proving the founder's outstanding individual capability. If there is coverage by prominent media, articles on investment attraction, patents, and the like, it can be an excellent alternative. But even if a single founder's case can be resolved, it is realistically very difficult to obtain O-1 visas for the core developers and marketers who will handle practical work alongside them. The professional visa (H-1B), which must go through a lottery, offers only a single opportunity each March, and with a relatively low chance of selection, the risk is too great to entrust a company's mid- to long-term plans to it.Visa Strategy Is Not a Follow-Up Task but a Prerequisite If you hastily establish a corporation, sign an office lease, and even receive initial investment before you begin considering your employees' visas, it is already too late. From the moment you design the equity structure and from the moment you determine the scale of the capital to be wired to the U.S. corporation, you must decide in advance which type of visa your company will choose.Immigration law is not a domain of the technical skill of drafting documents well. It is a core area of corporate legal practice that meticulously plans so that the U.S. corporation's business plan, the Korean headquarters' financial condition, the investment attraction roadmap, and the deployment scenario for core personnel fit perfectly into the puzzle of visa requirements. If you want a successful U.S. expansion, you must prepare Visa Compliance as fiercely as your investment attraction strategy. This is because a corporate registration certificate does not guarantee the start of a business, but the appropriate visa is the key that makes that business a reality. [Read the Full Article] [Cross-Border Legal] The Real First Gateway to a Startup's U.S. Expansion: The 'Visa' (Go)

The bereaved family of Mr. Jang, a man in his 30s who was found dead in Jeju 104 days after going missing, is deliberating over a state compensation claim. If litigation proceeds, the causal relationship between Officer Bu's poor response—including dereliction of duty—and Mr. Jang's death is expected to become the key issue. Timing unclear... Focus on the 'Officer Bu's illegality–Mr. Jang's death' relationship On the 26th, attorney Kim Min-ho of law firm LKB & Partners told the JoongAng Ilbo, "For state compensation liability to be recognized, three things must be established: an unlawful act by a public official in the course of duty, the occurrence of damage to the victim or the party entitled to claim, and a substantial causal relationship between the unlawful act and the damage," adding, "Examining whether the false closure of the case by Officer Bu, the police officer in charge, constitutes dereliction of duty (an unlawful act) is the first step." Attorney Kim is representing the state compensation lawsuit in the Incheon 'inter-floor noise knife rampage' case.The charges Officer Bu, currently under arrest, faces include dereliction of duty and the forgery and use of official electromagnetic records. After receiving the missing-person report on May 15, Officer Bu closed the report in about 2 hours and 30 minutes. It was subsequently confirmed that he had falsely entered 'death by traffic accident' into the missing-person profiling system and deleted materials related to Mr. Jang. In this process, the on-site search was also terminated.The next key issue is the causal relationship between Officer Bu's unlawful act of poor response and the damage of Mr. Jang's death. Mr. Jang's time of disappearance was around 10:15 p.m. on May 12, but the missing-person report was received three days later, at 6:43 p.m. on May 15. Attorney Kim Guk-il of Daeryun Law Firm said, "With the police strongly viewing the possibility of Mr. Jang's suicide, if Mr. Jang had already died before the missing-person report, it may be difficult for the full amount of the damages claim to be recognized." Legal community: "Setting aside causation of death, the bereaved family's harm is clear" However, since the deprivation of the bereaved family's right to know, to recover the body, and to mourn can also be regarded as damage, the legal community's view is that related alimony is highly likely to be recognized. Attorney Jeong Seong-won of law firm DH said, "Setting aside causation, it seems clear that damage occurred—for instance, the bereaved family lost the chance to know at least the minimum truth because the police failed to take the measures they should have," adding, "There is also a possibility that alimony will be recognized."Attorney Jeong cited, as a similar case, the 'Hwaseong elementary school student disappearance case,' one of the Lee Chun-jae serial murders. In December 1989, the investigation team of the Hwaseong Police Station confirmed part of the body of Kim Hyun-jung, who had gone missing that July, but reburied it in the ground to conceal it, and in August 1990 closed the case as a simple runaway.In November 2022, the Suwon District Court ruled that the state must compensate the bereaved family 220 million won, saying, "Due to the police's unlawful acts, the bereaved family was infringed for a long period in their right to mourn and commemorate their daughter and their right to know about the cause of death." The court did not find that the police's poor response caused Kim's death, but recognized the mental damage resulting from the bereaved family being unable to learn the truth for a long time due to the investigative agency's concealment and fabrication. The bereaved family of Mr. A, a man in his 60s whose body was found 51 days after the report due to Officer Bu's false closure, is also complaining of harm. According to the bereaved family, "Even though we visited the police station several times, they only said, 'He is safe but does not want to tell his family his location' and 'Look for him on your own.'"There is also concern that following the state compensation procedure in such a situation may double the bereaved family's suffering. Attorney Kim Min-ho said, "If only a police-initiated investigation proceeds without the bereaved family's complaint, the state will hold and manage all the key evidence related to causation," adding, "Since proof can become even more difficult in that case, there is a need to actively exercise legal rights such as filing a complaint, and to ease the victim's burden of proof or shift it to the state."Reporter Heo Jeong-won heo.jeongwon@joongang.co.kr [Read Full Article] Possibility of State Compensation in the 'Officer Bu Case'... Why the Legal Community Brought Up the 'Lee Chun-jae Case' (Go to)

Fair Trade Commission sanction calls for a review of franchisee autonomyDistinguishing essential items and incentive-based approaches as alternatives It has been pointed out that if a franchise headquarters unilaterally imposes sales targets for its private brand (PB) products on franchisees and penalizes them for failing to meet those targets, it may face legal sanctions. Even in the process of managing franchisees' sales or product sales, preventive compliance management is needed so as not to infringe on the franchise owners' autonomous right of choice.Attorney Son Kye-jun of Daeryun Law Firm emphasized on the 27th, in connection with a case in which the Fair Trade Commission imposed a penalty surcharge on a franchise headquarters that forced PB product sales targets on franchisees and penalized those failing to meet the targets, "Even if it is the franchise headquarters' business strategy, it must not be operated in a way that infringes on franchisees' autonomous right to choose products."This sanction is significant in that it is the first case to penalize, among violations of the Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act, the act of forcing a sales target for a specific product on franchisees. Whereas control over the franchise headquarters' overall sales or transaction terms had been the main regulatory target until now, this case is interpreted as showing that going forward, the act of effectively forcing the sales ratio of a specific product may also become a legal problem.Attorney Son said that even when a franchise headquarters seeks to expand PB product sales, it must design its business policy in a way that does not infringe on franchisees' right of choice.He said, "Even if PB product sales expansion is pursued as a business strategy to secure brand uniformity or profitability, an excessive purchase obligation must not be imposed on franchisees," and "In particular, measures such as suspending product supply or stopping a franchisee's code on the grounds of failing to meet a sales target can go beyond mere sales encouragement and become a legal problem."Accordingly, according to attorney Son's explanation, a franchise headquarters must clearly distinguish between essential items that must be purchased from headquarters and recommended items that franchisees can choose autonomously.Even if something is classified as a recommended item in the contract, it can become a problem if purchase is effectively forced or continuously pressured in the actual business field. Attorney Son emphasized, "One needs to periodically check whether the contents stated in the contract match the business methods applied in the actual franchisee operation process."He advised that promotions to expand PB product sales should also be designed around rewards rather than sanctions. This is a method of inducing autonomous participation by providing incentive payments or additional benefits to franchisees that meet the target, rather than penalizing those that fail to meet it.In contrast, acts such as limiting the supply of goods or imposing disadvantages on contract renewal on the grounds of failing to meet a target may be interpreted as forced purchasing or the provision of unfair disadvantages to franchisees, so caution is needed.Attorney Son emphasized that the scope of compliance management must not stop at the contract alone. He said one must scrutinize in detail not only franchise contract clauses but also how headquarters' business promotion guidelines and the contents conveyed by supervisors during the franchisee management process are actually applied in the field.He said, "It is difficult to justify the act of forcing a sales target for a specific product merely on the grounds that it was customary in the industry in the past," and "It is important to check in advance for contracts and business practices that may infringe on franchisees' autonomy, and, even when sales expansion is necessary, to establish a lawful incentive structure rather than disadvantages."He added, "As the Fair Trade Commission's inspection of unfair practices in the franchise sector may be strengthened, headquarters need to build a preventive compliance system in advance," and "One must consider not only the penalty surcharge for legal violations but also brand-level damage such as the decline of trust from franchisees and consumers."Reporter Jeong Ye-jin yejin0311@inews24.com [Read Full Article] [Legal Focus] ⑬ Franchise That Forced the Sale of PB Products... What Is the Solution for Compliant Management? (Go to)

When passing a parent's property to their children, people often agonize over whether inheritance or a gift is more advantageous. But in asset succession there is a more important question: namely, 'When should the property be transferred?'Recently, the government proposed a plan to expand the amount deducted per child in calculating inheritance tax—the so-called child deduction—from the current 50 million won to 500 million won. This is a government proposal not yet reflected in law.Looking only at the fact that the deduction increases tenfold, it is easy to conclude, "There is no need to gift in advance; passing it on through inheritance will do." But this is only half the truth.First, one must note that inheritance tax is not determined by the child deduction alone. One applies whichever is more advantageous between the sum of the basic deduction and the other personal deductions (including the child deduction) and the lump-sum deduction, and if there is a spouse, the spousal inheritance deduction must be considered separately.Under the government proposal, an heir with two children could receive a deduction of at least 1.2 billion won by combining the basic deduction of 200 million won and the child deduction of 1 billion won, and when there is a spouse, this total deduction grows even larger. In other words, looking only at the deduction amount, inheritance may appear advantageous.However, there is a variable more important than the deduction amount: the future value of the asset. If real estate currently worth 1 billion won has the potential to rise to 2 billion won in the future, gifting it now means, in principle, bearing gift tax based on the current value of 1 billion won, with the subsequent increase attributed to the child's property.On the other hand, if you hold it without gifting and inheritance commences, tax is calculated based on the increased value of 2 billion won. That is why, no matter how much the child deduction is expanded, for an asset expected to rise in value, gifting in advance—even at some loss on the deduction amount now—may ultimately be advantageous.That said, it is not the case that hurriedly gifting is unconditionally the answer. This is because property gifted to an heir within 10 years before the decedent's death is added back to the taxable value of the inheritance (5 years for a non-heir).In other words, if death occurs before a full 10 years have passed since the gift, the property you took pains to transfer in advance is ultimately included in the inherited property and the tax is recalculated.However, even in this case, since the gift tax already paid at the time of the gift is deducted from the calculated inheritance tax within a certain range, it is not something to dismiss as 'meaningless because it's within 10 years.' Ultimately, you must calculate together the period between the gift and death, the tax rate at the time, and the change in property value during that interval to accurately weigh the advantages and disadvantages.On top of this, the considerations also differ depending on the type of asset. For real estate, you must review not only gift tax but also acquisition tax and the capital gains tax upon future disposal.For listed stocks, the timing of the gift is important because future stock price increases can be transferred to the child; for unlisted stocks, since the gift value is determined by the valuation method under tax law, you must consider not only corporate value but also future management-rights succession.Ultimately, you cannot decide whether inheritance or a gift is advantageous based on the 'expansion of the child deduction' alone. Only by comprehensively considering the deduction amount, the future value of the asset, the time of death, and the type of asset can you establish the optimal succession strategy of which asset to pass on, when, and to whom.Josebo / Attorney Kim Hwa-yeong of Daeryun Law Firm [Read Full Article] When Passing Property to Your Children... What Matters More Than 'Inheritance' vs. 'Gift' [Column] (Go to)

Providing customized legal consultation services for center users- Building a rights-protection network and expanding social contribution activities Daeryun Law Firm and the public interest incorporated association Inyeonbeop announced that they have signed a business agreement with the Seoul Yeongdeungpo Regional Self-Sufficiency Center and are setting out to build a legal support system for vulnerable populations in the region.The signing ceremony was held on the 21st at the Seoul Yeongdeungpo Regional Self-Sufficiency Center. Officials including Lee Ye-seom, representative of Daeryun Law Firm, Kim Hyun-seop, secretary general of Inyeonbeop, and Lee Jin-hee, director of the Seoul Yeongdeungpo Regional Self-Sufficiency Center, attended.The Seoul Yeongdeungpo Regional Self-Sufficiency Center, an institution designated by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, helps low-income residents achieve economic independence by providing self-sufficiency work projects and employment and start-up support.This agreement was arranged to protect the rights of local residents who find it difficult to use legal services, and to reduce situations in which self-sufficiency and economic activity are interrupted due to legal problems.Under the agreement, Daeryun and Inyeonbeop provide customized legal consultation taking into account the circumstances of the center's users. The Seoul Yeongdeungpo Regional Self-Sufficiency Center will identify users in need of legal support and cooperate in connecting them to consultations.The three organizations will also build a cooperative network to protect the rights of vulnerable populations in the region. They plan to gradually expand the scope of cooperation to include consultation and case referrals, as well as legal information provision and social contribution projects.Lee Jin-hee, director of the Seoul Yeongdeungpo Regional Self-Sufficiency Center, said, "I hope that residents participating in self-sufficiency projects can receive professional support when facing litigation or legal disputes and continue their path to independence stably."Lee Ye-seom, representative of Daeryun Law Firm, said, "It is meaningful to be able to provide practical services to neighbors placed in legal blind spots," adding, "Together with Inyeonbeop, we will continue our activities to protect the rights of the socially disadvantaged and improve legal welfare." [Read Full Article] Daeryun Law Firm and Inyeonbeop Sign a Legal Support Agreement for Vulnerable Populations with the Seoul Yeongdeungpo Regional Self-Sufficiency Center (Go to)