Press

Coupang, which caused a large-scale personal information leak, is facing a series of class action lawsuits in the United States, where its headquarters are located. As judicial risks are gradually increasing, including the addition of the law firm that led the lawsuit related to the 'Dieselgate' emissions manipulation scandal by Volkswagen, Germany's largest automobile company in 2015, there are predictions that the US lawsuit could become the detonator of the Coupang incident. U.S. law firm Hagens Berman announced on the 24th (local time), “We have filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Coupang investors against Coupang Inc., Coupang’s parent company.” Hagans Berman is a law firm that was the first in the United States to file a lawsuit related to Volkswagen's Dieselgate, which shocked the global automobile industry 10 years ago, and is credited with playing a leading role in obtaining compensation of $14.7 billion (about 17 trillion won in Korean currency at the time). The law firm said, "This lawsuit focuses on whether (Coupang) misled investors about the appropriateness of cybersecurity protocols." He also said, “An issue is also whether Coupang’s disclosure system was sufficient to notify investors in a timely manner within four days of a serious cybersecurity incident.” Coupang reported the relevant facts to the U.S. financial authorities on the 16th (local time), about a month after becoming aware of the leak incident (the 18th of last month). It is said that the rule that a serious cybersecurity incident must be announced within 4 business days was violated. This law firm plans to recruit additional Coupang Inc investors who have suffered damages by February 17th next year. The industry predicts that judicial risks originating from the United States may be the detonator of the Coupang incident. In particular, in the United States, there is a 'discovery system' in civil litigation that mutually discloses evidence held by the parties before the trial begins, so if the law firms' claims are accepted, Coupang Inc may have to disclose sensitive data such as internal meeting minutes and emails. Another reason to pay attention to the U.S. lawsuit is that if punitive damages are applied, the amount of compensation could be astronomically high. On the 18th (local time), attorney Lawrence Rosen and U.S. shareholders of Coupang Inc filed a class action lawsuit, saying, “Coupang’s inadequate security protocols allowed a former employee to gain unauthorized access to customer information for six months.” They cited ‘damage to shareholder value due to security failure’ and poor disclosure as justification for the lawsuit. Korean law firm Daeryun's U.S. subsidiary (SJKP) is also preparing a consumer class action lawsuit against Coupang Inc. Reporter Lee Young-gwan ykwan@chosun.com[View full article] Will the U.S. lawsuit be a ‘detonator’ for Coupang? The law firm that first sued Volkswagen for ‘Dieselgate’ joins the company

Recently, the number of cases where corporate executives are at the center of legal disputes is increasing due to the strengthening of the Severe Accident Punishment Act, the implementation of amendments to the Commercial Act, and the spread of shareholder activism. The ‘individualization of risk’ is accelerating, such as claiming compensation for damages or holding individual executives criminally liable. Accordingly, the size of the directors' liability insurance (D&O insurance) market is steadily growing every year. This product is a system that guarantees damages and litigation costs when financial damage occurs to shareholders and third parties due to an executive's professional negligence or failure to fulfill obligations. According to the Financial Supervisory Service, this year's D&O contract size is expected to increase by about 15% compared to the previous year to approximately 62 billion won by September. Compared to countries where such insurance is active, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan, the prevailing opinion is that it is still in its infancy, but this proves that the sense of legal crisis felt by executives is increasing. However, when an accident occurs, insurance payments are often rejected, or fierce legal battles break out between insurance companies and executives over the scope of compensation. So, what are the legal issues of D&O insurance that corporate managers must be aware of? First of all, we must clearly understand the scope of 'damages' covered by D&O insurance. The core of this insurance is to compensate for the resulting damages when an executive becomes legally liable for damages to a third party due to an unfair act committed while performing his or her duties. The unfair act referred to here is a broad concept that encompasses business negligence, negligence, mistakes, and omissions. This works in conjunction with the scope of responsibility of executives set by laws such as Article 399 (liability to the company) and Article 401 (liability to third parties) of the Commercial Act. The problem arises immediately after the accident occurs, at the stage of interpretation of the insurance company's disclaimer clause. Since many executives have purchased insurance, we believe the majority of legal costs will be covered. However, the insurance terms and conditions state that damages caused by ‘intentional or criminal acts’ are not compensated. Even if you are found guilty in a criminal case, no insurance money will be paid. In other words, if an investigation is initiated on charges of embezzlement, breach of trust, or violation of the Capital Markets Act, it is very likely that the insurance company will judge this as a reason for exemption and withhold or refuse insurance payment. Many clients knock on the door of law firms when faced with such situations. In this case, the lawyer's assistance does not stop at simply criminal defense against the investigative agency. Legally proving from the early stage of the investigation that the charge is a negligence in management judgment rather than an intentional crime is a key judgment standard when disputing immunity during the insurance payment process in the future. Only by proactively responding from the investigation stage when the charges are not confirmed can you prevent insurance payments from being rejected in the future. Just as important as insurance payment is the issue of burden of litigation costs. Typical damages lawsuits take several years until the Supreme Court makes a final decision, and it is virtually impossible for individual executives to cover large amounts of attorney fees and litigation costs until a decision is made. For this reason, it is necessary to utilize the 'advance payment clause for defense costs' in the terms and conditions to ensure that legal costs are paid in advance by the insurance company even before the judgment. However, for risk management purposes, insurance companies tend to be reluctant to pay out before the judgment is confirmed. This is because there is a possibility that the money already paid may not be returned if the grounds for exemption are recognized in the results of a future trial. Accordingly, it is important to persuade the insurance company through a letter of promise to return prepaid expenses when the grounds for exemption are confirmed. In this way, D&O insurance is more than a simple financial product, but a complex legal contract directly related to the survival of executives. The structure is such that insurance companies try to minimize payments by imposing strict terms and conditions, and executives must prove the legitimacy of their management activities and request defense. In the end, D&O insurance is an economic safety device that supports active management activities, but signing up does not automatically resolve all legal risks. True risk management is completed by establishing a compliance management system and responding to a crisis by closely analyzing insurance terms and conditions and commercial law responsibilities with legal experts from the beginning when a crisis occurs. Small Business Team[View full article]

Daeryun Law Firm announced that it will hold a 'Korea-US Integrated Asset Succession Strategy Seminar for Global Asset Owners' on the 16th of next month. This seminar is aimed at 'cross-border asset owners' who are considering not only domestic asset succession but also asset succession between Korea and the US due to their children studying abroad, immigration, acquisition of permanent residency, etc., or who are planning to enter the US. Attorney Sang-wook Oh of Daeryun, accountant Park Soo-jin, tax accountant Joo-hee Lee, and US attorney Dong-hu Son. He is scheduled to appear as a presenter. First, Sangwook Oh, a lawyer in the tax group with experience working at the National Tax Service and a tax group, introduces the latest case law on asset succession. Next, tax accountant Lee Joo-hee, who has performed numerous tax due diligence and transaction structure consultations for tax and accounting firms, will give a presentation on the Korean inheritance and gift tax structure and the impact of overseas factors. In addition, accountant Park Soo-jin, who has worked at Samil Accounting Corporation and LG Chem Europe GmbH, will share practical cases of inheritance and gift tax strategy consulting. Lastly, Dong-Hoo Son, an American lawyer who successfully assisted major Korean companies in entering the United States, will conduct a study on laws and cases related to asset succession in New York State. After the presentation, there will be time to explore practical response plans through Q&A with attendees. In order to prepare a customized seminar that will be of practical help to participants, Daeryun is receiving advance questionnaires on asset structure and succession concerns at the application stage. We provide more specific diagnosis and practical consulting by identifying each participant's asset structure in advance. Daeryun Kim Kook-il, CEO of Daeryun Law Firm, emphasized, "The moment a child acquires permanent residency in the United States or holds overseas assets, the succession strategy based on Korean standards may be neutralized or face an unexpected tax bomb. This seminar will be the first step in checking whether my asset structure is currently safe and drawing an integrated succession map encompassing both Korea and the United States." Applications are available through the website and are accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. Eunhye Lee (zhses3@joseilbo.com)[View full article] Tax Ilbo - Daeryun Law Firm to hold ‘Korea-US Integrated Asset Succession Seminar’ on the 16th of next month Seoul Shinmun - Daeryun Law Firm holds Korea-US Integrated Asset Succession Seminar

A high school student who was put on trial for forcibly sexually assaulting an elementary school student by threatening him was acquitted. According to the legal community on the 24th, the 2nd Criminal Division of the Jeju District Court acquitted teenager A, who was indicted on charges of violating the Special Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes, etc. on the 18th. In 2024, A was accused of sexually assaulting B, an elementary school student whom he had known, by threatening to "tell people around me about my sexual relationship" and sending obscene photos. I'm receiving it. However, Mr. A denied the charges and claimed, “It is true that I dated Ms. B, but I was not forced to have sexual intercourse.” He also raised questions about the credibility of Ms. B’s statement by pointing out that the location of the crime and the circumstances at the time that she stated were constantly being changed. Regarding the charge of sending obscene photos, Ms. B did not show any resistance at the time, but rather continued the conversation naturally. The court said, “The victim’s statement is inconsistent and objective, with the details of the damage changing.” “There are some contents that contradict the facts,” the ruling said. “It is possible that the victim falsely stated that she was a victim of sexual violence because she was afraid of being reprimanded by her guardian for her relationship with the defendant.” He continued, “The victim did not express any objection to the photos sent by the defendant and continued the conversation casually,” and declared “A not guilty,” saying, “It cannot be seen that he sent a sexually humiliating message against the victim’s will.” Lawyer Yongdu Park of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented A, said. “If there is no direct evidence other than the victim’s statement, there should be no room for reasonable doubt about the statement in light of objective circumstances or rules of experience,” he explained. “Based on the history of the two people’s relationship, we were able to obtain a not guilty verdict by emphasizing the lack of objectivity in Ms. B’s statement.” Intern reporter Seo Da-hee happiness@kyeonggi.com[View full article] High school student found not guilty on sexual assault charges... The reason revealed by the court is (link)

Class action lawsuits in full swing in the U.S. Following consumers, shareholder lawsuits are also underway. As a class action lawsuit is being pursued in the U.S. surrounding Coupang's large-scale personal information leak, the 'discovery (evidence discovery)' system is attracting attention as a key procedure that will determine the success or failure of the lawsuit. There are predictions that the U.S.-style litigation structure, which, unlike in Korea, allows forcibly securing internal company data, will be a watershed in dividing the scope of responsibility of Coupang's headquarters. According to the legal community on the 23rd, SJKP, the U.S. branch of Daeryun Law Firm, plans to file a consumer class action lawsuit against Coupang Inc, Coupang's parent company, in New York federal court at the end of this month or early next year after completing the recruitment of plaintiffs. Daeryun explains that the core of the lawsuit is to determine whether the headquarters was responsible for security investment and internal control rather than the personal information leak itself. Coupang I&C, listed on the U.S. stock exchange, is the parent company that owns 100% of Coupang Korea Corporation. The strategy put forward by SJKP is the American discovery system. Discovery is a process in which documents and electronic information held by the other party are compulsorily submitted prior to the trial on the merits, and can even include company internal data such as board meeting minutes, internal reporting data, security budget decision documents, and email and messenger records from the incident response process. SJKP's position is that through this, it will confirm whether Coupang's headquarters took appropriate response or management/supervision measures after the personal information leak incident. The legal world believes that discovery itself can be a significant burden on companies. Kang Dong-hee, an attorney at Yoon & Yang Law Firm, explained, “Unlike Korea’s document submission order, U.S. discovery allows for extensive internal data acquisition and even includes testimony from executives and employees in the process,” adding, “It can also be used as a means of pressuring companies to reach an early agreement.” Some analyzes say that Discovery's impact could be greater in shareholder class action lawsuits than in consumer lawsuits. Lee Eun-woo, a lawyer at Hyangyang Law Firm, said, “Discovery means preserving related data rather than deleting it before the full-scale evidence begins,” and predicted, “In this case, the impact through a shareholder class action lawsuit may be greater than that of the victims of domestic information leaks.” As a shareholder class action lawsuit is a case in which the amount of damage is large and law firms invest intensive manpower and resources, the explanation is that internal documents and the contents of witness interviews secured through a full-scale discovery process after the data freeze can be key evidence in determining who is responsible. Currently, in the United States, apart from consumer lawsuits, a class action lawsuit is being pursued centered on shareholders who suffered damage from the stock price drop due to Coupang's personal information leak. We the People Law Firm has begun recruiting litigants to file a shareholder class action lawsuit in New York federal court, and is considering the timing of recognition of the information leak incident and whether there is a delay in disclosure as key issues. The law firm believes that Coupang did not fulfill its obligation to disclose personal information in a timely manner as required by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) even though it was aware of the personal information leak. In addition, in the business report submitted in February of this year, it is said that key information regarding the 'possibility of cyber security threats having a significant impact on the company' was falsely or poorly disclosed. If a company's reputation or customer trust is damaged due to a cyber security incident, the SEC considers it a 'serious incident' and stipulates that it is subject to disclosure. The legal community believes that the possibility that failure to disclose the leak in time or to minimize the risk may fall under these standards cannot be ruled out.[View full article] ‘Discovery’ emerged due to the Coupang incident… It became a key strategy in U.S. court lawsuits [Evidence discovery system, changing the game] (Shortcut)

Assault by pulling arm of protesting subordinate... 1st trial 'fine 300,000 won' appeal court: "Defendant is responsible for sales and employee management...action to prevent chaos in the store" A man who was put on trial for assaulting a subordinate was sentenced to a fine in the first trial, but was acquitted on appeal. The 2nd Criminal Division of the Gwangju District Court overturned the original decision that imposed a fine of 300,000 won at the appeal trial of a man in his 50s who was sent to trial on assault charges on the 19th of last month and found him not guilty. He was sentenced. Mr. A was accused of assaulting Mr. B by pulling his arm during an argument with his subordinate, Mr. B, over business practices within the company last year. The prosecution deemed that this charge was acceptable and summarily indicted Mr. A with a fine of 300,000 won, and the court also issued a summary order. However, Mr. A, who did not comply, requested a formal trial. During the trial, Mr. A claimed that he only grabbed Mr. B's arm to move to another place and did not pull him. He claimed that there was no intent. The court of first trial sentenced him to a fine. The court said, "If you look at the CCTV footage, you can see the defendant moving while holding the victim's arm," and said, "It is reasonable to believe that there was intention to assault because the victim refused the defendant's actions to take her out of the store." However, the judgment of the court of second trial was different. The appellate court said, "At the time, another employee and a customer were consulting nearby, and if the main content of the argument was heard by the customer, the contract could not be concluded." It was ruled that the purpose of the defendant's actions was to calm the victim and take her outside to prevent disruption or confusion in the business by calming the victim down and taking her outside." He added, "The extent of the exercise of tangible force was not significant when he grabbed the victim's arm once to express his intention to go out with him and then released it," adding, "As a person in charge of sales and employee management, the defendant's actions were justified." Attorney Jeong-hoon Kang of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A in the appeal trial, said, "The specific act was “Whether it constitutes self-defense is judged based on the legitimacy of the purpose and the appropriateness of the means,” he explained. “Based on Mr. A’s duties and the circumstances of the store, we were able to obtain a not guilty verdict by emphasizing that there was no intention to attack.”[View full article] A man in his 50s who assaulted a subordinate was found not guilty on appeal. Why?...Law "Legitimate Purpose" (Shortcut)

Accused of having an employment broker write a false notarized certificate, “The key is ‘employment fraud’… You need to look at a legitimate contract, not a threat.” A mother and son who were accused of threatening an employment broker by forcing him to write a notarization were cleared by the prosecution. The Ulsan District Prosecutors’ Office decided not to indict Mr. A and his mother, who were sent on charges of attempted extortion and coercion last October. Mr. A and others threatened employment broker B, claiming that they owed 300 million won as if they had no actual debt. He was accused of having someone prepare a false notarized deed as if he had a debt. Mr. B claimed, “Mr. A and others threatened to inform the company and family of the job request and demanded money, and I was unable to resist, so I was forced to prepare a false notarized certificate worth 300 million won.” Mr. A completely denied the charges. Mr. A countered, saying, “In the past, I paid 50 million won to Mr. B to ask for a job, but it didn’t work out, so I just asked for compensation for the damages.” He added, “Mr. B tortured me for 5 years in hopes of getting me a job at a famous manufacturer listed on the KOSPI, and the notarized deed was also written after Mr. B voluntarily proposed compensation for damages.” The prosecution decided not to file an indictment. The prosecution explained, “The essence of this case is that the complainant, Mr. B, committed employment fraud by deceiving clients and stealing money,” adding, “In fact, Mr. B has already been indicted on this charge.” He added, “Considering that Mr. B has written several handwritten confirmations that he will compensate a large amount of money in the past when he fails to find a job, the notarized deed is judged to be a legitimate contract in the nature of compensation for damages by agreement between the parties, not a threat.” Attorney Kim Geun-soo of Daeryun law firm, who represented Mr. “We were able to get rid of the unfair charges by proving that the notarized certificate was a fair compensation agreement for 5 years of damage,” he said. Reporter Kim Hee-guk kukie@kookje.co.kr[View full article] Mother and son accused of threatening employment broker 'not indicted' (link)

Consumers are increasingly criticizing Coupang for failing to come up with a relief plan for victims even a month after becoming aware of the customer personal information leak incident. In Busan, collective action appears to be in full swing, starting with a press conference by a civic group on the 15th, followed by the submission of complaints through law firms. According to Daeryun Law Firm on the 23rd, more than 3,900 people have participated in the lawsuit for damages against Coupang Inc, which is being filed by SJKP LLP, a local partner law firm in the United States. Coupang Inc, Coupang's parent company, submitted a report titled 'Significant Cybersecurity Incident' to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on the 16th (local time). According to SEC regulations, companies listed on the U.S. stock market must make a disclosure within four business days from the date the company determines a cybersecurity incident to be ‘serious.’ However, controversy arose because the disclosure was made only a considerable amount of time after Coupang became aware of the incident. In addition, Harold Rogers, Coupang's interim CEO, received strong criticism when he attended a National Assembly hearing on the 17th and said, "Although we are not subject to disclosure obligations, we made the disclosure in consideration of continued interest." In particular, social public anger is not expected to subside easily as it is pointed out that Coupang is going beyond the controversy over simply 'delayed disclosure' and is consistently avoiding legal responsibility rather than resolving the situation. Voices of criticism are also coming from the industry. In particular, it is evaluated as a clear contrast to the actions of other companies that were in similar situations in the past. Previously, Kakao quickly formed a damage support council when a fire in 2022 paralyzed related services and caused damage. SK Telecom also announced measures for victims, such as free SIM card replacements, when a customer information leak occurred. An industry official who requested anonymity explained, "There are stories inside and outside the industry that Coupang is holding meetings with domestic and foreign law firm officials in preparation for class action lawsuits in the U.S." and "It seems like they are putting more emphasis on legal action than on preparing measures for consumers." The government also drew its sword. On the 18th, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Science, ICT and Future Planning Bae Kyung-hoon submitted the 'Coupang Incident Pan-Ministry Response Direction' as an emergency agenda at the 2nd Science and Technology Ministerial Meeting held at the Seoul Government Complex and began emergency response by forming a task force (TF) team. This TF aims to go beyond simple accident resolution and prepare fundamental measures such as reforming the information security certification system and strengthening corporate responsibility. However, some are raising concerns about institutional limitations. An official in the security industry predicted, “For Coupang, defending against a U.S. lawsuit that applies punitive damages will be the top priority,” and added, “Despite pressure from the government, it is highly likely that it will remain passive until the end in announcing an apology or compensation plan that could serve as unfavorable evidence in a lawsuit.” Reporter Baek Jae-hyun (itbrian@newsis.com)[View full article] Consumers are angry at Coupang for avoiding responsibility... Class action lawsuit in full swing (link)

■ Coupang's U.S. shareholders also file class action lawsuit: "Shareholder value was damaged by delayed disclosure" The issue of violation of SEC regulations appears to be a major blow as it is combined with a consumer lawsuit. Coupang's personal information leakage situation has spread into a class action lawsuit for shareholders in the United States. While the focus has been on consumer class action lawsuits surrounding personal information infringement, this time, even shareholders who raise issues about violation of disclosure obligations and damage to shareholder value have taken legal action. There are evaluations that cracks are appearing in Coupang's defense logic, which has argued that "there is no problem under U.S. law" regarding delayed disclosure. According to related industries on the 21st, the key issue of this shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is the fact that Coupang Inc, Coupang's parent company, failed to disclose the incident in a timely manner even after being aware of it, rather than the personal information leak itself. The plaintiff claims that Coupang only described cyber security risks at the level of ‘potential risk’ through quarterly reports (Form 10-Q), etc., but in reality, a large-scale personal information leak by a former employee had already occurred. As a result, investors made investment decisions based on distorted information. With this lawsuit, whether Coupang violated the disclosure regulations of the U.S. securities authorities is expected to emerge as a major issue. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires disclosure within 4 business days when a serious cybersecurity incident occurs, but the plaintiffs believe that Coupang did not fulfill its obligation to disclose to the U.S. SEC within 4 business days from November 18, when it became aware of the incident. In relation to this, Coupang has maintained its position that “the personal information leak issue is not serious.” Coupang CEO Harold Rogers also said at a hearing held at the National Assembly on the 17th, “This matter is not classified as a serious incident by US standards, so there is no obligation to disclose to the SEC.” However, due to this shareholder class action lawsuit, Coupang's judgment itself has become subject to verification by the court. There is a greater possibility that the issue of whether a company can unilaterally judge the ‘gravity’ of an accident or whether it should be judged from the investor’s perspective will be dealt with in earnest in court. This lawsuit is also noteworthy in that it is different in nature from existing consumer class action lawsuits. While consumer class action lawsuits contend with a company's violation of its personal information protection obligations and invasion of privacy, shareholder class actions take issue with stock price declines and investment losses caused by the company's failure to disclose, financial information, and internal control. The underlying law is also the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act, not the Consumer Protection Act. An official from Daeryun Law Firm said, “In the case of a shareholder class action lawsuit, it could not only lead to the burden of a large settlement amount, but also lead to management liability issues and an SEC investigation, which could cause an immediate blow to corporate management.” In addition, there is an analysis that Coupang’s legal burden is growing further as a consumer class action lawsuit is underway at the same time. Previously, SJKP, the American branch of Daeryun Law Firm, officially filed a consumer class action lawsuit against Coupang Inc in the New York Federal Court on the 8th of this month (local time), and the number of participants in the lawsuit was reported to have reached about 2,000 in four days. In Korea, a number of law firms, including Cheong Law Firm and Jihyang Law Firm, have filed class action lawsuits against Coupang. Seong Woo-rin, an attorney at Dae-kyung Aju Law Firm (Limited), said, “In Korea, a consumer class action lawsuit for damage from personal information leakage and a shareholder class action lawsuit for stock price declines are underway simultaneously in the U.S.” He added, “In the case of shareholder lawsuits, the structure is to claim compensation for the decline in the value of stocks held, so there is a possibility that astronomical damages will be calculated on a much larger scale than the damage to personal information leakage.” “There is,” he said. He added, “Since the stock price has actually fallen, there is a possibility that the shareholders will win.” He added, “If the shareholder class action lawsuit and the consumer class action lawsuit are combined, Coupang can be seen as having entered a significant risk phase from a legal and financial perspective.” Reporter Lee Yong-seong (utility@sedaily.com)[View full article] When you lose, you pay astronomical amounts of compensation... Coupang 'beleaguered' due to burning legal risks (Click here)

From auxiliary tools to core infrastructure…Legal Tech’s Evolution of Artificial Intelligence(AI)Legal Tech, led by(Legal-Tech)is changing the paradigm of legal services.. Perform repetitive and time-consuming tasks such as document preparation and precedent review. AIWhile sharing, There is an assessment that legal services have entered a phase of efficiency focused on creating high added value..Recently, the growth of the legal tech market has been rapid.. According to Fortune Business Insight, a global market research firm, the size of the global legal tech market will be approximately this year. 340billion dollars(approximately 47landscape gardening)at 2032year 635billion dollars(approximately 88landscape gardening)It is expected to expand to. The average annual growth rate is 10% Inside and outside. especially AI The sector is growing faster. Business Research Insight is a global legal tech AI the market 2027year 465billion dollars(approximately 61landscape gardening) It is expected that it will expand in size.. This is why there is analysis that the introduction of technology is leading to structural change beyond a temporary fad..Experienced on site AI, “A reliable helper for lawyers with low experience”The changes felt in actual practice are clear.. In the past, it was just a simple data search stage. AIhas now evolved to the level of establishing the framework of writing..AI Choi Yi-seon, a legal service expert and managing attorney at Daeryun Law Firm, said: “today AIsummarizes the facts, Structuring issues, basic legal principles, We are assisting to a large extent with the writing work performed by lawyers with less experience, such as organizing the direction of similar precedents.”explained. Legaltech company AI The scope of use is also expanding.. Choi Joo-seon, CEO of Nepla(lawyer)Is “In research work, AIis being used widely, It is relatively useful in drafting formal writing or contracts.”He said “Recent multimodal AIAs technology has developed significantly, its potential for use in tasks that analyze various types of data, such as evidence analysis, is increasing.”said. AI The introduction brought about changes in the structure of lawyers' work.. Attorney Choi “data organization, draft, Tasks with relatively low added value, such as structured work AIAs the lawyer takes charge, the lawyer establishes strategies and makes difficult judgments., You can now focus on high value-added tasks such as communication with clients and companies.”as “The overall productivity of lawyers improves, A structure is formed in which both the quantity and quality of output increase simultaneously, which ultimately becomes the basis for lawyers to create higher value and earn profits.”He said.AI It was also predicted that its use could change the landscape of the legal market itself in the long term.. Attorney Choi “AIIf the time and resources secured are utilized to understand and accumulate expertise by industry,, A virtuous cycle structure is possible in which specialized lawyers for each industry are activated and corporate legal demand also increases.”and said. However, he “This change does not occur automatically;, the lawyer AIIt is premised on a conscious effort to convert the labor saved through”as “Making that premise work is a task that the legal community and the legal tech industry must solve together.”He pointed out.And then “Legal Tech ‘Nice tool to have’Rather, it will be basic infrastructure without which survival will be difficult.”He said “Legal Tech can gain market trust when technology and legal expertise are balanced.”He emphasized.This change in work methods is also reflected in statistics.. According to legal tech company Law & Company, AI service ‘Super Royer’ user's 94%experienced a reduction in work time, On average, approx. 25It was found that the effect of shortening work was seen.. Compared to before, work productivity is weak 1.7It's a two-fold improvement..Law & Company officials said: “Overall work time has been significantly reduced due to improved work efficiency.”as “AI As productivity increases through introduction, an environment will be created where legal experts can focus their capabilities on more important tasks.”predicted that. ‘labor provider’at ‘service designer’asAI The introduction is also changing perceptions of the role of lawyers.. Perform low-value-added tasks such as drafting and organizing data. AIWhile taking charge, The lawyer △Establish a strategy △Difficult legal judgment △We are now able to focus more energy on high value-added areas such as in-depth communication with clients..This is affecting the profit structure of the legal market.. existing ‘Get paid according to the time invested’ In an hourly fee-centered structure,, AIThis is a transition to a performance- and value-based compensation system based on efficiency through. Attorney Choi “Such changes are already underway in advanced legal tech countries such as the United States and Europe.”He said “Korea too AI As utilization spreads, it will gradually but inevitably follow.”predicted that.CEO Choi “The hourly fee is a model limited to some large law firms.”He said “AIRather than changing the profit structure itself, it is working to increase the possibility of a win-win situation for both law firms and clients within the existing structure.”and analyzed. And then “For law firms that must work within a limited budget, AIEfficiency through efficiency can be a means of breaking the vicious cycle of deficit or quality decline.”was diagnosed.However, efficiency innovation is AIdoes not mean a complete replacement for. Legal issues are related to the context of the case, human relationships, social ramifications, This is because atypical factors such as the court’s tendencies work in combination.. AIis only a tool to aid judgment., It is impossible to be the subject of judgment..CEO Choi AIDue to the social limitations of ‘say’chose. CEO Choi “Technological limitations are changing so rapidly that it is difficult to determine”Although “human AIwill not hand over the final decision to”He emphasized that. With the spread of legal tech, responsibility and ethical standards, The challenge of institutional support is also rising to the surface.. AI Who will be held responsible if a legal problem arises due to an error?, AI The standards for how to verify the reliability of analysis results are not yet clear..Experts and industry believe that Korea has ample potential to leap forward as an advanced legal tech country.. CEO Choi “In Korea, electronic litigation is already active and all legal documents and evidence are electronic.”as “Since the workflow in the legal market is already combined with technology, it is very natural for advanced new technologies to become established as infrastructure.”I predicted. However, some point out that discussions on responsibility standards and ethical guidelines are still lagging compared to the speed of technology diffusion.. Whether institutional discussions to ensure trust and responsibility can be held in parallel with efficiency innovation is considered a key variable that will determine the direction of the legal market in the legal tech era.. Legaltech industry insiders said: “AIis not a technology that replaces lawyers., Infrastructure that improves the quality and productivity of legal services”saying “In order for Legal Tech to settle in the market, discussions on responsibility structure and ethical standards must be carried out in parallel with technological advancement.”said. [View full article] Changes in the legal landscape... How far has ‘Legal Tech’ come? (Shortcut)