Press

Many clients think of filing a fraud complaint as one of the solutions when they do not receive the money they lent. However, in order for fraud to be established, it must be clearly proven that the debtor did not have the intention or ability to fulfill the obligation from the beginning. It is difficult to be recognized as a fraud simply by not paying back the money, and there is also a risk of being counter-indicted for making a false accusation. In the same case, the first action you can take is to send a certificate of contents. This mainly contains the statement, "If the debt is not met within a certain period of time, legal action will be taken, so let's resolve it amicably before then." Proof of contents puts considerable psychological pressure on the other party, so there are many cases where the problem is resolved at this stage even if a lawsuit is not filed. Nevertheless, if the other party does not pay the debt, you must prepare for a lawsuit. The idea is to file a civil lawsuit, obtain a favorable ruling, and begin compulsory execution procedures. The most important step in this process is to accurately identify the debtor's enforceable assets. If assets are not identified or are unclear, you can check the details of assets such as real estate, deposits, security deposits, salaries, etc. by requesting property specification or property inquiry through the court. However, the possibility that the other party intentionally conceals the property or transfers it to a third party cannot be ruled out. In this case, safety measures must be put in place by applying for preservation measures such as provisional seizure and injunction in advance. So, if the creditor has already embezzled the property in the name of a third party, is there no way? In this case, a possible solution is a 'creditor cancellation lawsuit'. The creditor's previous actions can be invalidated and the relevant property returned to the debtor's name. In particular, Article 404 of the Civil Code guarantees the 'creditor's right of subrogation' so that a creditor can exercise the debtor's rights on behalf of the debtor. In some cases, this right can be a more effective and faster method of collecting claims than general compulsory execution. Let's take a case I actually handled as an example. The client was a creditor who lent Company A about 1 billion won. The problem here was that Company A did not have property that could be executed. Company A had established Company B to acquire Company C and had handed over a large amount of funds. On the other hand, Company C owned golf course land worth 50 billion won on Jeju Island. Company C was ultimately acquired by Company A through Company B, but because Company C was a legally separate corporation from Company A, it was not easy for the client to directly touch Company C's assets. At this time, the author used the legal principle of 'creditor's right of subrogation'. If company A gave money to company B, and company B lent money to company C, the client, who is company A's creditor, is considered to be able to subrogate company A's creditor's right of subrogation, that is, 'company A's right to provisionally seize property owned by company C on behalf of company B, the debtor.' Although there was some trial and error due to the lack of precedent at the time, the court eventually made a decision to cite provisional seizure of Company C's golf course site, and the bond was fully recovered. Legal procedures and securing evidence should be prioritized over simple emotional response in bond recovery. It is important to remember that if you move outside the legal boundaries out of fear of not receiving money, you may face greater disadvantages in the future. Our Civil Act and Civil Procedure Act provide a variety of rights relief methods, but each system has different requirements and application methods, and there are also deadlines such as statutes of limitations and filing periods. Therefore, it is important to determine the appropriate means for each individual case and apply it in a timely manner, and it is most necessary to receive professional legal assistance at an early stage. Small and Medium Business Team[View full article] It is absolutely difficult to commit fraud… ‘Debt collection technology’ to ensure you get the money you deserve (link)

“As much as we respect corporate autonomy, I hope that consumer rights will also be protected. I hope that starting with this ruling, the two values ​​will find a balance.” On the 18th, Mr. A, an employee of Daeryun Law Firm, and lawyer Da-eun Kim said this. The Seoul Central District Court recently ruled that the terms and conditions of the accommodation platform Nol Universe (Yanolja), which stipulates that refunds cannot be made more than 10 minutes after completing a reservation for accommodation products, are unfair and therefore invalid. Mr. A was the plaintiff and Attorney Kim acted as the representative and brought out this ruling. The story is as follows. Mr. A, who was in charge of business trips in Daeryun, reserved accommodation through Yanolja. However, the schedule was changed and I announced my intention to cancel my reservation two hours later, but Yanolja informed me that a refund was not possible. The reason was that if you do not cancel within 10 minutes after completing the reservation, a cancellation fee equivalent to 100% of the reservation deposit will be charged according to the regulations. Accordingly, Daeryun decided to file a lawsuit to return the unfair profits. This is to raise issues about terms and conditions that infringe consumer rights and receive legal judgment. The E-Commerce Act guarantees consumers a 7-day cancellation period, but some industries, such as lodging and aviation, customarily view exceptions without making specific judgments for each case, so they believe that only consumers are bearing the brunt of the damage. During the lawsuit, Yanolja argued that mail order brokers are not subject to the relevant provisions of the E-Commerce Act and therefore do not have to be responsible for refunding fees. However, Attorney Kim countered that Yanolja went beyond being an intermediary and actually engaged in active sales activities as a seller. To prove this, Attorney Kim went through the process of reserving and canceling products from Yanolja several times. At the same time, if you reserve a room at the published rate, you can cancel without a fee until the actual stay, but we confirmed that a full refund is not possible for the product in question, even though the difference is less than 20,000 won than the published rate. Based on this, the trial emphasized that it was significantly unreasonable in light of general common sense. As a result of the trial, the court ruled that Yanolja was a mail order seller or a ‘mail order intermediary who is a mail order seller.’ In addition, the refund policy was deemed invalid as it was unfavorable to the customer and constituted an unfair term, and the full refund was ordered to be paid to Mr. A. Daeryun's side said that if only the status of an intermediary is recognized as in existing precedents, it results in evading responsibility for various business activities, and it appears that the court sympathized with the problem of this unreasonable structure. Attorney Kim said, "This ruling does not mean that all terms and conditions that are converted to non-refundable after a certain period of time are considered invalid. However, the prevailing perception has been that even if a problem is raised with similar terms and conditions, the possibility of winning is small, but this ruling has confirmed the possibility of redress for consumers' rights." Daeryun plans to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of consumers who have suffered damage due to Yanolja's terms and conditions. Currently, criminal complaints, accusations, and civil lawsuits are being filed on behalf of victims regarding the leak of SKT's personal information. Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] Seoul Newspaper - Law firm puts the brakes on Yanolja’s terms and conditions of ‘no refunds after 10 minutes of reservation’… “I hope this becomes an opportunity to balance consumer protection and corporate autonomy” (link) Money S - ‘Yanolja refund’ win case Attorney Da-eun Kim “I wanted to find ‘rights’ more than money” (Go to here)

Daeryun Law Firm announced on the 18th that it has hired former Senior Secretary for Economic Affairs Ahn Il-hwan (32nd civil service examination) as an advisor. Advisor Ahn graduated from Masan High School in Gyeongnam and the Department of Trade at Seoul National University, and received a master's degree in economics from the University of Ottawa in Canada and a doctorate in public administration from the Catholic University of Korea. After passing the civil service examination in 1989 and entering public service, Advisor Ahn worked at the Economic Planning Board and the Ministry of Planning and Budget, and built his career as a budget expert by being dispatched to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) in the U.S. In addition, after the launch of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance in 2008, he held key positions such as the head of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, budget system, and general budget management. In particular, during the period when the Korean economy was experiencing difficulties due to the global financial crisis, he oversaw the preparation of the supplementary budget as the head of the budget system department. Afterwards, he held major positions such as the Ministry of National Defense's Planning and Budget Officer and the Ministry of Strategy and Finance's spokesperson, and then rose to the position of Director of the Budget Office and Second Vice Minister, and in 2021, he was selected as Senior Secretary to the President for Economic Affairs. Advisor Ahn said, "I have experienced numerous cases in the fiscal policy sector, including leading the preparation of the super budget during COVID-19," and "I have worked with corporate customers in Daeryun, etc. “We will do our best to identify acute conflicts of interest and clearly resolve them,” said Daeryun Kim Kuk-il, CEO of Daeryun. Eunhye Lee (zhses3@joseilbo.com)[View full article] Jose Ilbo - Daeryun Law Firm Recruits Former Senior Secretary for Economic Affairs Ahn Il-hwan (Click here) Blotter - [Law Firm ON] Daeryun recruits former Senior Secretary for Economic Affairs Ahn Il-hwan (Click here) Korea Economic TV - Daeryun Law Firm Recruits Former Senior Secretary for Economic Affairs Ahn Il-hwan (Click here) Legal Times - [Law Firm iN] Recruitment of Dae-ryun and Ahn Il-hwan, former senior economic advisors (link)

In 2015, the Supreme Court's plenary body declared the success fee agreement in criminal cases invalid on the grounds that it was contrary to Article 103 of the Civil Act, that is, good morals and other social order. The ruling at the time reflected social criticism of the courtesy of military officials, distrust of the judicial system, and the demands of the times to ensure integrity. However, as the Supreme Court itself stated, whether a legal act violates social order must be judged based on the circumstances of the time and social norms at the time the legal act was performed. The Republic of Korea today is in a clearly different legal and social environment than in 2015. The institutional foundation, including the revision of the Public Official Ethics Act and the enactment of the Anti-Graft and Corruption Act, has already been established, and the monitoring and control of courtesy to all officials has ensured institutional effectiveness. The public's sensitivity to the law has improved dramatically, so the common belief that the judgment of judicial institutions will be distorted simply because there is a success reward is losing its persuasiveness. Rather, legally allowing success conservatism and regulating it transparently may be a way to increase trust in the judiciary. The Supreme Court was concerned that criminal success compensation could distort judicial justice as a price for the outcome, but this is an interpretation that confuses the nature of the contract with public ethics. Justice is realized through the design and implementation of systems, and is not damaged by the act of receiving compensation itself. Success fees already exist informally in practice, and it is in line with the reality of the legal market to foster them and manage them under transparent contracts. Recently, even within the Korean Bar Association and bar associations, the perception of the complete ban on criminal success compensation is a measure that is divorced from reality is spreading. The Korean Bar Association has actually been operating a standard contract based on the premise of criminal success compensation, and many lawyers are evaluating that it is possible to operate realistic cases through this. This should be read as a discussion of institutional improvement that goes beyond the restoration of freedom of contract and reflects the structural reality of legal services. The lack of institutional consistency regarding criminal compensation is also felt in practical settings. The people do not want to entrust their fate to a public defender who receives an allowance of 300,000 won, like in a movie scene. Just as there is a line in the drama, “The money you should never save in life is lawyer’s fees,” there is a growing awareness that the right to defense cannot be fully exercised with only low allowances and limited assistance. This reveals the structural limitations of the public defense system and symbolically shows why a result-oriented private contract structure should function as an option. Ideals that ignore reality do not gain sympathy. We must implement justice in institutional reality. Criminal success compensation is a device that effectively guarantees the ‘right to receive assistance from a lawyer’, a fundamental right under the Constitution. The high deposit is an absolute barrier to exercising the right to defense, and the success fee is the only realistic structure that can compensate for this. Today's criminal justice stands on two axes: not only the integrity of judicial institutions but also the guarantee of the people's actual right to defense. The public interest role of lawyers must be performed fairly regardless of the outcome, but the logic that receiving reasonable compensation based on performance is against social order is no longer convincing. Rather, the institutionalization of criminal success compensation is the only institutional device that provides real options to the public and allows lawyers to provide more responsible assistance. In order to escape from a structure where one has no choice but to choose low-quality defense due to the burden of down payment, the legal validity of success fee must now be reexamined from the beginning. Park Dong-il, CEO of Daeryun Law Firm, said, "Criminal success compensation is not a contract to buy justice. It is an institutional means that citizens can choose to achieve justice. Under the conditions of fair contracts, transparent standards, and strict enforcement, criminal success compensation should not be a regression in judicial justice, but rather a restoration of public rights and the direction of practical judicial reform demanded by the times." Reporter Jin Ga-young (lawissue) (news@lawissue.co.kr)[View full article] Criminal success compensation needs to be discussed again to restore public rights (link)

A worker who suffered a finger amputation accident while working at a factory filed a lawsuit for damages against the company's representative, but lost. According to the legal community on the 17th, the Busan District Court ruled on the 15th of last month that Mr. A, a worker in his 30s who was a food company worker, lost the plaintiff's lawsuit against CEO B. In 2023, while working at a food factory, Mr. A suffered an accident in which his finger was caught in a vegetable grinder and cut off. Accordingly, Mr. A claimed that Mr. B was forcing him to work. The lawsuit was filed claiming that Mr. B was responsible for violating the duty of care by not providing safety or job training. However, Mr. B refuted Mr. A's claim, saying that sufficient training on how to use the grinder and safety rules had been provided. He also claimed that Mr. A suffered an accident while arbitrarily trying to remove food residue without turning off the power of the machine. The court said, "If you look at the instructions for using the machine, if the grinder stops working due to overload, you must turn it off and solve the problem. “This information was attached to the front of the shredder, so the workers were fully aware of the contents,” he said. He ruled in favor of Mr. B, saying, “The defendant made the workers, including the plaintiff, aware of the usage rules every morning, and the plaintiff also operated the machine according to the manual until the accident.” He also stated the reason for sentencing, saying, “The accident appears to have occurred while the plaintiff was working in violation of the safety rules.” Attorney Jong-Hoon Han of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. B, said “Mr. A has been using the shredder without any problems for over a year immediately after joining the company, and none of the other workers who have been in charge of the same work have suffered any injuries,” he explained. “Since the accident occurred due to working against work instructions, it should be seen that there was no intention or negligence on the part of Mr. B.” Jeong Eui-jin (jej88@ikbc.co.kr)[View full article] A worker whose finger was amputated while working filed a lawsuit against the representative, but lost the case (link)

A man accused of sexually assaulting and committing adultery with a woman in his 30s on several occasions received a reduced sentence in the appeals court for a man accused of sexually assaulting and molesting his intellectually disabled cousin. The Busan High Court sentenced Mr. The original trial was overturned and he was sentenced to three years in prison and five years of probation. He was also ordered to receive probation and attend 40 hours of sexual violence treatment classes. Mr. A was accused of forcibly molesting and committing adultery with his cousin B, who has a brain lesion, several times from 2019 to 2023. The first trial court sentenced Mr. A to four years in prison. The court explained, “The crime is more serious because it was a crime against a disabled victim,” and “The victim must have also suffered considerable pain.” Mr. A filed an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing. The reason was that although it was true that he had sexual intercourse with Mr. B, it was not forced. In addition, Mr. A's side also emphasized that Mr. B expressed his intention not to be punished during the appeal process. The appeals court accepted Mr. A's argument. The court explained, “The defendant has no history of criminal punishment and appears to have made efforts to reach an amicable resolution, such as depositing consolation money for the victim.” He added, “The victim also actively expressed that he does not wish to punish the defendant.” Daeryun Law Firm, the legal representative of Mr. A, said, “We actually explained the friendly relationship between the two and emphasized that this should be taken into account,” adding, “We can bring about a lenient result by explaining favorable factors, such as the possibility of Mr. A’s rehabilitation, from various angles.” “There was,” he explained. Reporter Kim Jong-cheol (jckim99@sportsseoul.com)[View full article] My cousin, who suffered from brain lesions, committed adultery for several years... ‘Sentence commuted’ through appeal hearing (link)

Following SK Telecom, suspicions of personal information leakage were also raised at YES24. YES24 stated that “there was no personal information leakage” immediately after becoming aware of the ransomware attack on the 9th, but the seriousness of the matter was revealed when the Personal Information Protection Committee detected abnormal member information inquiry circumstances and began an investigation. This incident is not limited to a simple hacking incident. Repeated personal information leaks raise fundamental questions about the actual responsibility of major domestic companies for personal information protection and whether the institutional response system is functioning properly. In particular, both SK Telecom and YES24 had received government-run ISMS (Information Security Management System) or ISMS-P (Integrated Certification for Personal Information Protection) certification. ISMS-P is a system that examines and certifies that a company has certain managerial and technical protection measures in place. However, this system does not evaluate whether a hacking incident occurred or whether the company fulfilled its actual responsibilities after the incident. The damage relief system and practical measures to prevent recurrence are unrelated to the validity of certification. As a result, as long as the requirements are met, the certification is maintained. The problem is that this certification is easily abused by the company's logic of immunity after the accident, saying, “We were operating a system that was certified by the government.” Certification for prevention and strengthening responsibility is actually used as a tool for ‘fulfilling formal responsibility’ when an accident occurs. The certification system is functioning differently from its original intent. If we are relying on a system that neither prevents accidents nor strengthens responsibility, citizens will inevitably end up thinking, “National certification does not protect me.” The system exists, but its effectiveness is weak, and the problem is even more serious in that it is a structure that allows companies to avoid responsibility even after an accident occurs. Overseas are different. A U.S. federal court ordered Israel's NSO Group to pay approximately $167 million in punitive damages in a case involving unauthorized infringement of WhatsApp users' devices. US telecommunications company T-Mobile also paid a multi-million dollar class action settlement after a large-scale personal information leak. The law and system are structured to actually hold companies accountable. On the other hand, Korea is still limited to mild punishment. This is because administrative fines, corrective orders, and formal supervision are all that are involved. In civil lawsuits, the burden of proof is excessively placed on the victim, and the level of compensation is far from reality. A more serious problem is that some media outlets and large law firms are spreading the logic that "claiming compensation for personal information leaks is of no use," creating an atmosphere that causes citizens to give up exercising their rights. In order to crack this structure, Daeryun Law Firm is pursuing class action lawsuits against large corporations for personal information leaks. This decision is by no means a favorable choice if viewed solely from the profit logic of the legal market. However, since its establishment, Daeryun has placed the reason for the existence of legal services not on ‘profit’ but on ‘practical realization of citizens’ rights.’ This class action lawsuit is also an extension of that. Daeryun dispersed the legal market centered on the metropolitan area to a regional basis and established a nationwide branch office so that all citizens can receive high-quality legal services. We partnered with large law firms in the U.S. and Japan to incorporate advanced legal systems in Korea, and introduced a customer service system (AS system) that allows for customer satisfaction surveys, replacement of lawyers, and even refunds. This SK Telecom class action lawsuit is also an exercise to prove that such a structural experiment is feasible in reality. There is no reason why the personal information of Korean citizens should be less important than that of American or European citizens. What is needed now is the introduction of a punitive damages system, strengthening the effectiveness of the class action system, and establishing a legal foundation that can lead to actual corporate responsibility. The court must also present clear standards and a strong message so that companies accept personal information protection as the ‘essence of management’ rather than an ‘optional’. This lawsuit is not just a case asking for the legal responsibility of one company. This should be the starting point for laws and systems to officially declare that personal information is a fundamental right under the Constitution, not subject to technical management. Personal information is a valuable asset. The rights of the people should never be given away at a cheap price.[View full article] Law Leader - [Contribution] National certification has become a corporate impunity, a law is needed for ‘real responsibility’ (link) Korea Law Daily - [Contribution] National certification has become a corporate impunity, a law is needed for ‘true responsibility’ (link)

The court ruled that if a loan was made under a stolen name, the financial company that did not properly verify identity was responsible. On the 15th of last month, the Western Branch of the Busan District Court ruled that the plaintiff lost in a lawsuit filed by a credit card company against Mr. A, a man in his 60s, on the 15th of last month on the 15th of last month. He collapsed while working and was taken to the hospital, but did not fully regain consciousness and was diagnosed with severe disability. Afterwards, the children began managing Mr. A's cell phone for industrial accident insurance processing, but a problem arose when one of the children received an unauthorized loan of about 35 million won in Mr. A's name. The child issued a card and received a loan in Mr. A's name, and when this fact was discovered, he wrote an IOU to repay the loan to Mr. A and his wife. However, the card company gave Mr. A a loan. A reminder was sent to repay the loan. Even if the child's identity was stolen, the loan amount was transferred to an account in Mr. A's name after an identity verification process through a mobile phone, so Mr. A should be regarded as a loan contract pursuant to Article 7, Paragraph 2, Item 2 of the Framework Act on Electronic Transactions. Accordingly, Mr. A's side emphasized that Mr. A had been unable to communicate long before the loan contract was executed, and that the deposited loan money was also immediately transferred to the child's account. The court ruled in Mr. A's favor. The court said, “A contract is established by the agreement of the parties, but considering the defendant’s state of consciousness at the time of the loan, it is recognized that the defendant’s identity was stolen, so the contract was not established.” “Even if Mr. A and his wife allowed their children to use mobile phones, it cannot be seen that they agreed to proceed with the identity verification process or even accepted the results arising from it.” It continued, “Authentication through mobile phones is not a complete means of ensuring reliability and stability,” and “The plaintiff properly fulfilled its obligation to verify identity.” He added, “It is reasonable to say that it was not implemented.” Attorney Son Yun-jeong of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, explained, “If a financial institution shifts responsibility for a financial accident to the customer just because it has gone through a formal non-face-to-face real name verification, it could lead to an unfair result of reducing the duty of care regarding identity verification for non-face-to-face transactions.” Digital Content Team[View full article] A loan taken out with stolen identity and a demand for repayment... Law: “Identity verification obligation should have been observed” (Shortcut)

Prescription of 7 times the maximum allowable amount of medication... A court ruled that a hospital that caused side effects by misadministering medication to a patient in violation of the medical staff's duty of care must bear responsibility for damages to the patient. On the 28th of last month, the Pyeongtaek branch of the Suwon District Court ruled in favor of patient A in the lawsuit filed by patient A against hospital B, and ruled that hospital B should pay 40 million won. Person A, who was diagnosed with cerebral hemorrhage in October last year and was admitted to hospital B, was in poor condition. He improved and was discharged from the hospital, where he was prescribed antibiotics. Afterwards, Mr. A took the medicine according to the hospital's instructions, but his health rapidly deteriorated and he suffered serious side effects such as delirium and decreased consciousness. Mr. A, who was eventually re-hospitalized, learned that Hospital B had overprescribed antibiotics to him and filed a lawsuit for damages. The dose of medication prescribed by the hospital at the time was found to be seven times the maximum allowable amount. Mr. A explained the background for filing the lawsuit, saying, "We did not agree on how much compensation Hospital B would pay if treatment was needed in the future." The court acknowledged Hospital B's liability for damages on the basis that medical staff have a duty of care to prescribe medication with appropriate usage and dosage. Attorney Lee Il-hyung of Daeryun Law Firm, the patient's legal representative, said, "The patient took antibiotics for a day at the time of prescription. “I thought it strange that I had to take 7 pills, so I checked again, but the medical staff violated their duty of care and explanation and confirmed that there was no problem,” he said. Reporter Jeong Ye-eun (ye9@kyeonggi.com)[View full article] “The hospital is responsible for side effects after incorrect medication administration”… 40 million won compensation ruling (link)

While handling various divorce cases, I have some particularly memorable clients. These are people who are over 60 years old and come to see me saying, “I can no longer live with my spouse.” The reasons for deciding to divorce only after the children have all grown up are varied, such as the spouse's continuous cheating, domestic violence and verbal abuse, extreme pressure to save money, and the breakdown of the marriage due to conflict between the mother and father. However, in most cases, they have endured for a long time to protect their families. Recently, not only celebrities and famous people, but also ordinary couples often choose to divorce after reaching their twilight years to live their own lives by separating from their spouses. 'Graduation marriage' is a legal term. It is not a concept, but maintaining a legal marriage relationship under mutual agreement between the couple, and living each other's lives without interfering with each other's lives, literally 'graduating from married life'. Divorce is presented as an alternative to divorce, which inevitably involves a process of battle and defense, but an accurate understanding of this is necessary because it does not usually require division of property or claims for alimony like divorce, which is a legal procedure. Even if a spouse has been a housewife all her life and has only done housework, if she proceeds with a twilight divorce, both spouses can cooperate to achieve divorce. The right to claim property division for joint property is recognized, and an average of 50% of the property can be divided depending on the degree of contribution to property formation. In particular, if the other party has the right to receive a pension, according to Article 45 of the Civil Service Pension Act and Article 64 of the National Pension Act, if a person who has been married for more than 5 years divorces, he or she can claim an amount divided equally between the pension amount corresponding to the marriage period. This can be decided differently during the divorce process through negotiation and trial, so in old age when income decreases after divorce. It can serve as a living aid. In principle, the subject of property division corresponds to property formed through joint efforts during the marriage period. However, even in the case of unique property inherited by a spouse, if he or she contributed to the maintenance or increase of the property, it is advantageous to divide the property according to the degree of contribution. The right to claim alimony is the right to claim compensation for mental suffering suffered by one spouse due to the illegal acts of the other spouse responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. In Article 840 of the Civil Code, the spouse's misconduct, It stipulates six types of judicial grounds for divorce, including malicious abandonment and other serious reasons that make it difficult to continue the marriage, and alimony can be claimed in a divorce lawsuit or mediation by alleging the tort of the at-fault spouse. However, in the case of a graduate marriage, unlike the property division or claim for alimony upon divorce, since the couple maintains a legal marriage relationship, if the couple has agreed on the division of property at the time of the divorce, this is merely an agreement between the parties as a property contract during the marriage. Therefore, if details are not specified, written in ambiguous language, or not notarized, it can become the spark of another dispute in the future. If you live separately during the period of graduation and eventually get divorced, the period of marriage itself may not be recognized as the actual period of marriage. Conversely, the spouse who took advantage of the fact that the legal marriage was maintained may claim alimony by claiming that the other party violated the duty of chastity, and may be placed at a disadvantage in future divorce lawsuits. In addition, since you may become a defendant in an adultery lawsuit after dating someone who graduated from marriage, you should first think carefully about the disputes that result from graduating from marriage. Although the couple can no longer live together due to an insurmountable conflict, there may be various reasons that third parties are not aware of that prevent them from legally getting divorced. However, careful attention is needed to ensure that graduation is a happy marriage and that it does not become a means for one spouse with an economic advantage to escape.[View full article] [Monday Column] Divorce and divorce, what is your choice? (Shortcut)