Press

There are increasing cases of people knowing that they have a sexually transmitted disease but hiding it and transmitting it to others. Recently, an active player in a domestic professional soccer league passed a sexually transmitted disease to a woman and was handed over to the prosecution. In this way, if you are aware of the disease and have sexual intercourse and infect your partner, you can be punished by law. In cases of sexually transmitted disease infection, a crime of injury or manslaughter may be applied. In general, it is easy to think of the crime of injury as inflicting physical damage by inflicting violence on another person, but the crime of injury can also be applied when intentionally causing physical or mental pain to another person. Looking at Supreme Court precedents, injury is something that damages the integrity of the victim's body or causes impairment in physiological functions, and does not necessarily have to be accompanied by external injuries. Therefore, if you spread the disease by hiding the fact that you were infected with a sexually transmitted disease, you can be sued by the other party. The key here is 'intention.' If you have sexual intercourse even after knowing that you have a sexually transmitted disease, you will be charged with bodily harm, and if you contracted the infection without knowing it, you will be charged with manslaughter. All of these crimes carry heavy punishment if found guilty. Article 257 of the Criminal Act states that a person who causes physical injury to another person shall be subject to imprisonment for up to 7 years, suspension of qualifications for up to 10 years, or a fine of up to 10 million won. Article 266 of the same Act stipulates that anyone who causes physical injury to a person due to negligence shall be subject to a fine of up to 5 million won, detention, or minor fines. However, in cases of sexually transmitted disease infection, it is difficult to prove it and rarely leads to punishment in practice. This is because it is not difficult to prove that you were infected by someone else. It can only be accepted as evidence if it proves intentionality that the person was aware of the infection and a causal relationship that the person was infected through sexual intercourse with the other person. For example, there was a case where a man hid the fact that he was infected with herpes type 2, causing damage to the person he was in a romantic relationship with. As a result of continuing sexual intercourse without informing the victim that he or she was infected with a virus that is transmitted through sexual contact, the victim suffered permanent damage that requires lifelong care. At this time, the victim, who received assistance from a lawyer, proved the damage through valid evidence such as conversation history and medical records. Additionally, in addition to criminal punishment, civil compensation for damages was also sought and monetary compensation was received. Conversely, there are also cases where the charges are wrongfully filed. There are times when a person is accused by the other person and is framed as a perpetrator, but if you claim to have suffered damage even though you were infected by someone else, you have no choice but to be sued. In this case, it is necessary to get the help of experts from the beginning of the case and quickly clear the charges. [View full article] - Can sexual intercourse while hiding the fact of infection with a sexually transmitted disease constitute a crime? (Shortcut)

Business owner turns a blind eye to compensation request from employee injured while extinguishing fire. Uniform court says, “Business owner is responsible for injuries that occurred while working… Mental shock must also be compensated.” The business owner, who had ignored the request for compensation from an employee who was injured while putting out a fire, has been awarded compensation, including alimony. The court ruled that mental damages caused by the business owner's insincere attitude must also be compensated. The Bucheon branch of the Incheon District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a damages lawsuit filed by employee A against restaurant owner B in August. Person A suffered burns while working at a restaurant run by person B earlier this year. While Mr. B left the fire on to cook food, a fire broke out and he was injured while trying to extinguish it. Mr. A, who suffered third-degree or higher burns, was told by the hospital's medical staff that he would need more than a year of treatment. Afterwards, he requested compensation for damage, including treatment costs, from Mr. B, but Mr. B avoided contact, saying, “I cannot give you a large amount of money.” The court ruled in Mr. A’s favor. The court ruled that Mr. A should pay 28 million won in compensation, saying, "Considering that the fire occurred during working hours and that sufficient safety training and protective equipment were not provided, the store owner's negligence is acknowledged." It also ordered Mr. A and his mother to pay 3 million won each in alimony. The court explained, "The psychological trauma suffered by the plaintiff due to the severe burns is very serious," and "It appears that not only the plaintiff but also the plaintiff's mother suffered extreme pain as not even a proper apology or compensation was provided." Shin Yong-hoon, a lawyer at Daeryun Law Firm (Limited), who represented Mr. He added, “Even though Mr. A, who was a job seeker, suffered serious injuries that required long-term treatment, the store owner showed an irresponsible attitude, which added to the mental stress of Mr. A’s family.” He added, “It appears that the court took these circumstances into consideration and even ordered the payment of alimony.” [View full article] - Ignoring calls from an employee who was injured at work... The story of having to pay alimony (link)

The Ministry of Labor and the Ministry of Employment and Labor judged that it is difficult to regard celebrities as employees in the past. Celebrity exclusive contracts are judged to be delegation contracts under civil law, so there must be 'subordination' and 'compulsion' to be recognized as workers. Hani, a member of the girl group New Jeans, appeared at the National Assembly Audit Hall on the 15th to testify about the issue of bullying in the workplace, saying that she was ostracized within the hive of an entertainment agency. On this day, Hani said that this was not the first time something like this had happened, and said in tears that this would not have happened if they respected each other as human beings. It was leaked. New Jeans fans reported Adore and Hive officials to the police, and it is known that about 100 complaints were also filed with the Ministry of Employment and Labor. Now the ball has passed to the Ministry of Labor. The issue is whether the employee status of New Jeans members who signed individual contracts with the agency is recognized. Netizens responded by saying, “Are freelancers and self-employed workers employees? Make all non-employed self-employed employees employees,” “Are idols employees? They belong to an agency, but they don’t receive a set salary,” “Where are the workers who earn several billion won?”, “Shouldn’t all office workers in the country with a monthly salary of less than 300 be subject to a national inspection?”, “Are idols wage earners? Business income earners?” and that celebrities with different salary levels are not included as workers. On the other hand, there were also reactions such as “Workers outside of the workforce are also people. We need to protect them,” “We are all human beings, so it’s hard to argue whether they are workers or not,” “It is true that whether or not they are workers is based on how much money they make, and the purpose of this national inspection is to guarantee the human rights of special workers, including celebrities,” and “There must have been a lot of unfairness that many young trainees and idols were unable to speak about in their blind spots.” Looking at past government judgments, It was difficult to classify celebrities who sign exclusive contracts as workers under the Labor Standards Act. A ‘worker’ under the Labor Standards Act is defined as “a person who is subordinate to an employer and provides labor for wages.” Most celebrities work under an exclusive contract with an agency, and the agency manages the celebrity’s activities and shares profits. However, since the agency is entrusted with the celebrity's work and performs it faithfully, such a contract is generally judged to be a delegation contract or contract based on a delegation contract under civil law and is not considered an employment contract. What conditions must a celebrity meet in order to be recognized as an employee? Attorney Choi Hyun-deok of the Daeryun Law Firm explained, “They must be in an employment relationship where they are subordinate to their agency and receive unilateral instructions, commands, and supervision.” He continued, “If a celebrity does not have independent decision-making authority in their activities and is required to follow the agency’s unilateral instructions (defined tasks), and if they receive specific and direct command and supervision in the course of their work, several conditions must be met.” However, he explained that most of the exclusive contracts of celebrities are atypical contracts that are based on delegation contracts and are a mixture of employment contracts and subcontracts, so it would be difficult for celebrities to be recognized as pure workers who are completely subordinate to the management company. As a result, some point out that there is a need to improve the labor rights of idols, who are in a blind spot. Workplace Gapjil 119 said that since idols are young and have a subordinate relationship with their agency, they are even more considered workers under the Labor Standards Act. Lawyer Choi also said that there is still a lack of a legal system that can clarify the nature of celebrity exclusive contracts, and suggested that there should be legislation that takes into account the special characteristics of celebrities. How are celebrities classified overseas? In the US and UK, celebrities are generally not considered workers. In the United States, people are classified as ‘independent contractors’ and must pay their own income and social security taxes, and often do not receive welfare benefits provided by their employers. In the UK, celebrities are mainly classified as ‘self-employed’. They contract to participate in plays, broadcasts, films, etc., but perform the work freely rather than receiving direct instructions from their employer. [View full article] - Are idols also ‘workers’? Questions left by Hani’s testimony [All That Check] (Shortcut)

While the Ministry of Justice is pushing for revisions to the Commercial Act and the Capital Markets Act that include 'protection of shareholders' interests,' some are pushing ahead with the amendments to the Commercial Act and the Capital Markets Act without listening to the opinions of businessmen and others. There is also criticism that it is a "political amendment." There is confusion between related ministries or lack of preparation. Initially, whenever the Commercial Act is revised, the Ministry of Justice creates a revision committee made up of experts and collects various opinions, but in this revision, unusually, there is no movement to form a committee. They also seem to be rushing to announce the amendment without even completing the hearing of opinions from stakeholders, including businessmen. According to the legal community on the 15th, the Ministry of Justice has not established a commercial law revision committee while promoting a commercial law revision aimed at protecting shareholders' interests. Although it is not necessary to create a committee to revise the Commercial Act, there is a precedent of always creating a committee and collecting various opinions from experts when making large or small revisions. A legal expert who has served as a member of the revision committee several times interpreted, “Creating an amendment without a committee is proof that the amendment is being rushed and is a somewhat political amendment.” An official from the Ministry of Justice said, “Even without a committee, we are listening to the opinions of officials in various ways.” It is known that the Ministry of Justice is considering adding the clause 2 of Article 382-3 of the Commercial Act, which states that ‘directors must strive to protect the legitimate interests of shareholders while performing their duties’ in this amendment. In addition, it is being considered to include in the amendments the autonomy of merger ratios among listed affiliates and the obligation to disclose corporate value evaluation results in the event of a merger. On this day, the Ministry of Justice announced, “Although we are pursuing revisions to the Commercial Act and the Capital Markets Act, nothing has yet been decided on the content and timing of announcement.” It is known that there is some confusion within the Ministry of Justice regarding such amendments. This is not only because a committee composed of external experts has not been formed, but also because the opinions of actual stakeholders, such as businessmen, have only just begun to be heard. There are many different opinions from outside. A professor at a law school said, “There is no social discussion about the extent of legitimate interests among the amendments that strive to protect (shareholders’) legitimate interests.” He added, “For example, if you push for revision of the Commercial Act without agreement on whether it is a legitimate interest if all the procedural matters are met, there is bound to be controversy.” Bang In-tae, an attorney at Daeryun Law Firm, also said, “As minority shareholders can file lawsuits directly against management, the shareholder representative lawsuit system under Article 403 of the Commercial Act has also been introduced.” He said, “This increased burden on management not only increases corporate costs, but also carries the risk of internal information related to the company’s core competitiveness being disclosed to the outside world.” [View full article] - Ministry of Justice reviews provisions on ‘directors’ efforts to protect shareholders’… Controversy over passing the revision committee (link)

In a rental lawsuit, the burden of proving the rental lies with the plaintiff. Judge Dong-Hyeon Yoon of the Western Branch of the Busan District Court said, “There is no objective basis to prove the rental.”A ruling was made to dismiss the plaintiffs' loan claim, judging that the money transferred by the deceased husband to his brother-in-law's account during his lifetime was a 'gift'. It was confirmed on the 14th that Judge Dong-Hyun Yoon of the 4th Civil Division, Western Branch of the Busan District Court ruled against the plaintiff on the 5th of last month in a lawsuit claiming the return of the loan that the wife and children of the deceased, Mr. Sent 60 million won. According to Mr. B, it was a way of repaying his sister and Mr. B for taking good care of him while he was living isolated from his family for a long time. However, a few years later, when Mr. A suddenly passed away, the conflict over ‘60 million won’ began in earnest. Mr. A's wife and children, who belatedly learned of the whereabouts of the large sum of money, filed a lawsuit against Mr. B for the loan. They argued at the trial that the 60 million won that Mr. B and his wife received from Mr. A was a 'loan'. At that time, Mr. B and his wife were in a situation where they had to urgently purchase an apartment, but due to lack of funds, they borrowed money from their family member, Mr. A. In response, Mr. B countered, saying, “There was no reason to borrow money because the funds for the purchase of the apartment were already sufficient.” Judge Dong-Hyun Yoon of the Western Branch of the Busan District Court, who heard the case, said, “There is insufficient basis to admit that 60 million won is a loan. The plaintiffs did not know the details of the transfer, and based the lawsuit based on various circumstances. Judge Dong-Hyun Yoon also ruled that “the defendant’s claims are persuasive, as when combining various evidence, it appears that the deceased, who transferred the money around 2020, depended for his living on his younger brother and his wife, not on his own family,” and dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims. Attorney Kim Hae-rin of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented the defendant B, who won the case in this trial, said, “In the rental lawsuit, if the defendant is different from the plaintiff, “If the fact of the rental itself is not acknowledged, the burden of proof as to whether it was a rental lies with the plaintiff,” he said. Attorney Kim Hae-rin continued, “The plaintiffs had little interaction with Mr. A for a long time, so they were not even aware of the remittance.” He added, “It appears that the legal effect was not recognized because they claimed the loan without any related materials such as a money consumption loan agreement.” [Read full article] - Court says, “60 million won sent to my brother-in-law... was a ‘gift’ as the loan could not be proven” (Shortcut)

The court ruled that it was an unfair decision not to allow the establishment of an avoidance facility due to opposition from residents. According to the legal community on the 11th, the 1st administrative division of Cheongju District Court recently ruled on August 22 that Chungju City will cancel the notice of disallowance of waste treatment business that Chungju City gave to Mr. A, a waste treatment plant operator. Mr. A submitted a waste treatment business plan to Chungju City in January 2023 and received a conditional notification of suitability. It was suggested that 'business site management, including maintenance of prevention facilities, will be thoroughly implemented to prevent odors from occurring.' Afterwards, Mr. A prepared facilities and equipment according to the contents of the business plan and submitted an application for a permit to the city, but the permit was rejected. The reason was that opposition complaints were received from residents who raised the odor problem. Mr. A then filed an administrative lawsuit, and the court ruled in favor of Mr. A, saying, "The opposition complaints from nearby residents cannot be regarded as a requirement for a waste disposal business license." He agreed. He then explained, “We took into account the fact that odor prevention facilities were scheduled to be installed, the odor measurement values when the facility was in operation were below the emission standards, and there was no objective evidence to prove that serious odors were likely to occur.” He also said, “After the plaintiff received notification of suitability for the business plan, he invested a lot of time, money, and effort to install the facilities, etc.” and added, “Due to the disposition, all of the above efforts were in vain and he suffered a huge disadvantage.” He added. Attorney Daeryun Lee Dong-eun, a law firm representing Mr. A, emphasized, "According to the Waste Management Act, related facilities must not be rejected or notified as inappropriate for reasons such as simple opposition to installation." He added, "Dispositions in such cases should be viewed as illegal as an abuse of discretion or a measure that deviates from the scope." He added, "Waste treatment facilities are facilities that are absolutely necessary for us, but at the same time, they are facilities that are not preferred," and "It is difficult to be completely free from the influence of the local community. “Administrative offices must make decisions based on objective and specific data,” he pointed out. [Read the full article] - “Residents oppose” the refusal to allow the establishment of facilities avoided. Law calls it “an unfair decision” (Shortcut)

The director of an academy accused of extorting billions of won from parents was sentenced to prison. On August 23, the Criminal Division 1 of the Eastern Branch of the Busan District Court (Chief Judge Lee Dong-gi) sentenced Mr. He asked for a loan. At first, Mr. A immediately repaid the borrowed amount and acted as if he was keeping his promise, but a few hours later, he deceived Mr. B by asking for a re-deposit due to an account error. Mr. A's requests for money continued thereafter. Complaining of difficult circumstances such as betrayal by a business partner, Mr. A persuaded Mr. B that he would repay the loan by opening a high-limit negative bank account. In this way, the total amount paid by Mr. B to Mr. A over 20 days amounts to 2.49 billion won. The court said, “The defendant deceived his parents for the purpose of using it for internet gambling, etc.,” and “Considering this, the nature of the crime is bad, and the defendant’s history of fraud and the fact that he has not been forgiven by the victim. “Considering this, there is a high possibility of criticism.” The fact that Mr. A had repaid about 68% of the borrowed money was taken into account as a favorable circumstance, but Mr. A was sentenced to prison. Attorney Kim Jin-won of Daeryun Law Firm (Limited), who acted as the victim’s legal representative, said, “There are frequent cases of borrowing money under the pretense of pretending to repay even when there is no ability to repay,” and added, “This case is not a simple financial issue. “It is a serious crime of extorting money,” he said. He added, “Postponing the promised repayment date is also beneficial to property, so in this case, the crime of fraud is also established.” [View full article] - Academy director who deceived parents and extorted billions of won... Sentenced to 3 years and 6 months in prison (link)

Judge Jeon Jae-hyeon of the Seongnam branch of the Suwon District Court, who prosecuted a safety manager on site on charges of professional negligence, said, “There is no proof that the defendant violated his duty of care during his work.”A decision was made to acquit a safety manager who was indicted on charges of neglecting safety management at a construction site, causing a worker to suffer a 12-week injury. On August 28, Judge Jeon Jae-hyun of Suwon District Court's Seongnam Branch, Criminal Division 5, sentenced Mr. A, a safety manager indicted on charges of professional negligence, saying, "The defendant is not guilty." Mr. A worked as an on-site safety manager at a single-family home construction site in 2020. At the time, Mr. B, a daily worker working at the site where Mr. A was in charge, lost his footing and fell to the floor 1.5 meters below while working on attaching plasterboard to the third floor ceiling. In this accident, Mr. B suffered serious injuries, including traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, which required 84 days of treatment. In this incident, the key issue was whether Mr. A, the safety manager, had taken all necessary safety measures at the scene. The prosecution decided that Mr. A was responsible for the accident and indicted him for failing to fulfill his duty of care. However, the court's judgment was different. Judge Jeon Jae-hyun of the Seongnam Branch of the Suwon District Court, who heard this case, said, "It is difficult to say that it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant violated his duty of care at work and caused injury to the victim based on the evidence presented by the prosecutor." Specifically, based on the photos of other buildings at the scene submitted by the lawyer and the statements of Mr. B's colleagues, it was said, “It is possible to say that the defendant fulfilled his duty of care to prevent falls by installing wooden scaffolding on the entire floor before the accident in this case occurred,” and “As the ceiling work was completed, the defendant removed all the scaffolding, but it appears that Mr. B suffered an accident while working on another folding scaffolding (commonly known as ‘Uma’) alone without separate instructions, approval, or consent.” He then said, “Ultimately, there is a possibility that the construction work done by the victim at the time the accident in this case occurred was not work that was ordered or scheduled, and we cannot rule out the possibility that the accident occurred in a way that was difficult for the defendant to predict.” Attorney Na Chang-soo of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. “We emphasized that safety measures were taken well by securing the photos with difficulty,” he said. Attorney Na Chang-soo also explained, “Based on these points, the court also appears to have ruled that the defendant was negligent in his duty of care and that there was no clear causal relationship between the accident and declared him not guilty.” [View full article] - Serious injury to the head for 12 weeks due to fall at construction site. Why was the safety manager not guilty? (Shortcut)

Providing legal services for local residents... Accessibility due to location in Songjeong-dong Expected to handle a variety of tasks ranging from civil and criminal matters to labor disputes Daeryun Law Firm (Limited) announced on September 30 that it will open its 41st branch office in Gimcheon and Gumi and provide local customized legal services. The Gimcheon-gumi branch office is located in Songjeong-dong, the administrative center of Gumi City, and is close to residential areas as well as government offices such as city hall, police stations, and fire stations, and companies, thereby increasing accessibility. In particular, It can be accessed in about 10 minutes from Gumi City Hall, Gumi General Terminal, and Gumi Gasan Industrial Complex, and it plans to provide legal services to the nearby city of Gimcheon as well. In the future, the Gimcheon Gumi branch office plans to resolve legal issues by reflecting the characteristics of the local community in various fields, including civil and criminal cases, divorce, administration, and school violence. In addition, as many companies are concentrated in the Gumi area industrial complex and Gimcheon industrial complex, we plan to handle labor disputes and related legal advisory work as well. Daeryun Kim Kuk-il, CEO of Daeryun, said, "When creating a branch office, we consider regional characteristics as the top priority. This Gimcheon-Gumi office was also planned through careful analysis. We judged that Gimcheon and Gumi are major cities that lead the economy along with Pohang in the Gyeongbuk region, so a variety of legal needs are needed." “Daeryun is cooperating with the head office to provide the same high-quality legal services as the head office at all branch offices across the country,” he said. “Through this opening, we will do our best to provide systematic legal services closer to clients by increasing customer accessibility.” [View full article] Aju Economic Daily - [Law Firm Lounge] Daeryun opens its 41st branch office in Gimcheon-Gumi (Shortcut) Money S - Daeryun Law Firm opens its 41st branch office in Gimcheon and Gumi (Shortcut)

The court ruled that even if the land was not owned by the owner, he could receive legal protection if he used it for free for a long period of time. The Sokcho branch of the Chuncheon District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit related to the establishment of a passage easement filed by the plaintiff A against the land owner B in August. Mr. A purchased land in Yangyang, Gangwon-do in 2001 and built a house and lived there. Afterwards, he tried to sell the house in 2019, but the real estate agent responded that it was impossible. It was received because it was land with no roads connected to the surrounding roads, so-called 'blind land'. However, Mr. A's position was different. The position was that there had been a passage connecting the land and a general road even before the construction of the house. Mr. A also claimed that when the land was damaged 20 years ago, he had personally restored it and used it as a passage. The court ruled in Mr. A's favor. The court said, "Mr. A has been using the passage as a passage to enter the house since 2003. “(The land) has been in use for more than 20 years, so the conditions for acquiring the right of way will be met by the end of 2023,” he said. “While Mr. A continued to use the passage at issue in this case, the owner, Mr. B, allowed the opening of the passage without taking any special measures, such as imposing a toll,” said Hwang Seo-young, a lawyer at the law firm Daeryun, who represented Mr. A. He added, “The court also took all of these points into consideration. “It appears that Mr. A has acknowledged the right to pass through the land free of charge,” he added. [View full article] - 'It's not my land'... but if you've used it for a long time, you can receive 'legal protection'