Press

The court ordered the local government to demolish public sewage treatment-related facilities installed without permission on private land and hand over the land. The Jeonju District Court recently ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a facility demolition and land handover lawsuit filed against Jeonju City by Mr. A, a resident of a townhouse. Mr. A filed a civil complaint with Jeonju City in 2022 requesting that the public sewage pipe installed within the residential land and the fence protecting it be moved and installed. This facility is a sewer pipe that is not used by the residents of the townhouse where Mr. A lives, because it interfered with vehicle traffic and building repair work. However, the city responded that relocation was difficult because there were no national or public lands nearby. Mr. A then asked the city to suggest alternatives, such as opening a vehicle entrance and exit road. However, as the city took no action, Mr. A filed a lawsuit. During the trial, the city claimed that the facilities were installed for safety reasons when the townhouse was built. At the same time, he emphasized that if the city had installed this facility, there would have been consent from the owners of the townhouses. However, the court ruled in favor of Mr. A, saying, "The sewer pipe in question is being used to treat sewage from buildings near the townhouse where Mr. A lives, and the townhouse is treating sewage by installing a separate septic tank. There is no data showing that the consent of the townhouse owners was obtained or compensation was paid when installing the sewer pipes and fences." The court also ruled in favor of Mr. A. “According to the Sewerage Act, the city is responsible for managing sewer pipes. It is reasonable to view that the city, which is responsible for managing sewer pipes, installed the facility without permission and occupied the land without the consent of the townhouse owners who own the land, so it has an obligation to demolish the facility and hand over the land,” the ruling said. Mr. A’s legal representative, Jeong Woo-hyung, an attorney at Daeryun Law Firm, said, “The Sewerage Act provides for the local government to take responsibility for cases where a local government uses someone else’s land when installing a public sewer pipe. “It stipulates compensation, and if Mr. A agreed to the installation as claimed by the local government, appropriate compensation should have been provided, but such evidence did not exist.” Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] Local government failed to provide an alternative to the request for relocation of public facilities to private land... Court, demolition order (link)

While we were dating, we asked to break up several times, but he threatened to expose the fact that we maintained our relationship through assault... The victim complained of extreme stress. A man in his 50s was sentenced to prison for threatening and even assaulting his mistress for several years after she notified him of a breakup. On the 11th of last month, the Jeju District Court sentenced Mr. A (53), who was indicted on charges of injury, etc., to one year in prison. Mr. A was indicted on charges of hitting his face several times in anger at the request for a breakup from his mistress B around September 2020. At the time, it was revealed that Mr. A committed this act while fighting over his affair. Afterwards, Mr. A went to the store run by Mr. B and made a fuss by breaking the door lock and yelling. In addition, it was confirmed that Mr. A broke into Mr. B's vehicle without permission, damaged the black box, stole the memory chip, and used a location tracking app to monitor his private life. At the trial, Mr. A denied most of the crimes, saying, "It is unfair because there are many things that are different from the facts." The court sentenced Mr. A to prison based on the facts of the damage. The court ruled, “The defendant is complaining of injustice from the investigative agency to the court, but looking at the submitted evidence, he is judged guilty.” “There is no reflection or common sense explanation from the defendant, and the motive for the crime and the surrounding circumstances are very bad.” Attorney Park Yong-du of Daeryun Law Firm, who is Mr. B’s legal representative, said, “Mr. B has already tried to escape from Mr. A several times, but he was bound to fail every time.” “The relationship continued through gaslighting (psychological control),” he said. “Mr. B, who suffered physical, mental, and property damage from Mr. A, is complaining of pain to the extent that it is difficult to live his daily life. As a result of proving the damage on behalf of Mr. B, the perpetrator was able to be severely punished.” Reporter Kim Jong-cheol (jckim99@sportsseoul.com)[View full article] Man in his 50s sentenced to prison for assaulting and threatening a mistress who asked for a breakup (link)

Attorney Choi Yoon-jeong of Daeryun Medical Pharmaceutical Group In this contribution, we will look at the reporting obligations and expenditure report preparation obligations of pharmaceutical sales promotion operators (CSOs) based on the revised Pharmaceutical Affairs Act. The Pharmaceutical Affairs Act defines a pharmaceutical promotion business operator as “a person who has received product approval for a drug, an importer, or a drug wholesaler who is entrusted with the sales promotion work of a drug and wishes to perform it” and “a person who is re-entrusted and intends to perform the entrusted sales promotion work,” and Article 46-2 of the same Act imposes reporting obligations. In addition, pharmaceutical companies are also prohibited from entrusting sales promotion work to undeclared sales promotion operators. In addition, the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act contains provisions that, in principle, prohibit drug promotion business operators from providing economic benefits to pharmacists, oriental pharmacists, pharmacy workers, medical personnel, medical institution founders, and medical institution workers. However, there are also regulations regarding economic benefits that are permitted as exceptions, and based on this, an expenditure report must be prepared for the economic benefits provided. The expenditure report preparation system was introduced around 2018, but at that time, pharmaceutical sales promotion operators were not included as subjects of expenditure report preparation obligations. As a result, problems began to be raised about drug promotion businesses that provide unauthorized economic benefits. Problems surrounding the provision of illegal profits have become more serious over the years, and as a result, pharmaceutical sales promotion companies have also been subject to the obligation to prepare expenditure reports. Although there is some difference in the timing when the obligation to report and prepare expenditure reports was introduced, the relevant systems are currently in effect, so drug promotion salespeople must comply with the above obligations. If violated, administrative action or even criminal punishment may be imposed in accordance with the provisions of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act. Therefore, in order to avoid disadvantages, you must check the information on how to report sales promotions, reasons for disqualification, and benefits that can be provided, as stipulated in the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act and the Enforcement Rules of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act. In particular, in the case of permissible economic benefits, the subject, target, and scope are defined differently for each item, so it is necessary to confirm exactly what economic benefits are allowed to be provided. In addition, the Ministry of Health and Welfare not only conducts a fact-finding survey on expenditure reports prepared by pharmaceutical sales promotion operators, but also discloses all survey results and submitted reports. Additionally, the Ministry of Health and Welfare may request submission of supporting data for the above expenditure report when necessary. In light of this, pharmaceutical sales promotion businesses should also be aware of the obligation to keep related books and supporting data for a certain period of time.[View full article] [Contribution] Pharmaceutical sales promotion business report-Regarding the obligation to prepare an expenditure report (Shortcut)

Daeryun Law Firm, which provides assistance such as analyzing cosmetics market regulations and reviewing laws for entering overseas corporations, announced that it has signed a business agreement (MOU) with cosmetics company Bonne Co., Ltd. The signing ceremony was held in the new conference room at Daeryun Law Firm's headquarters on the 24th, and key officials including Daeryun CEO Kim Kuk-il, attorney Jeong Jae-kwon, Bonne Vice President Nam Byeong-soo, and Deputy General Manager Jo Joon-won attended. Bonne Co., Ltd. entered the global market in 2009. Since its establishment, it is a cosmetics ODM company that was listed on the KOSDAQ market in 2018. In 2017, it supplied self-developed mask packs to Kiehl's, a subsidiary of L'Oréal, the world's No. 1 cosmetics company, and has stood out in the beauty industry by winning the '30 Million Dollar Export Tower' award last year. In addition, in 2021, it pursued business diversification by acquiring Atosafe, a company specializing in eco-friendly household products. Through this MOU, Daeryun plans to support stable growth by analyzing and preemptively managing legal issues that Bonne may experience. Specifically, △ analysis of market regulations △ legal advice on transaction contracts △ review of contents when entering an overseas corporation △ legal specialized for the cosmetics and beauty industry, including resolution of disputes on the stock exchange. We plan to provide services.Bonne Vice President Nam Byeong-soo said, “I was deeply impressed by Daeryun Law Firm’s innovative approach and global capabilities. We will further strengthen our competitiveness based on Daeryun’s diverse legal assistance in overseas expansion and local agency operations.” Kim Kuk-il, CEO of Management, said, “Daeryun has experts in various fields such as accountants, labor attorneys, customs brokers, and tax accountants, so we can provide immediate and comprehensive support.” He added, “Through this MOU, we are a KOSDAQ-listed company. “We will cooperate so that Bonne can receive more prompt and professional legal advice,” he said. Meanwhile, Daeryun is managing risks by recruiting lawyers specializing in fair trade law and securities trading law to promptly respond to rapidly increasing corporate legal disputes. Reporter Park Jun-sik (parkjs@wowtv.co.kr)[View full article] Daeryun-Bonne Law Firm Signs MOU (Click here)

On the 12th, the government announced a reform plan to change the inheritance tax system from ‘heritage tax’ to ‘heritage acquisition tax’ as early as 2028. This is evaluated as the first major reform in 75 years since the enactment of the Inheritance Tax Act in 1950. The reform plan was promoted to △ alleviate the burden of excessive progressive taxation △ improve the effectiveness of deductions △ rationalize the scope of taxation. The key is to tax individual heirs only on the property they actually inherited. In the case of the existing estate tax, the tax was levied based on the entire inherited property of the deceased (deceased person). On the other hand, in the case of inheritance acquisition tax, equity is improved because each heir is taxed according to the property acquired. For example, let's imagine that 1.5 billion won is passed on to three children in equal amounts of 500 million won each. As it stands, the three children must jointly pay inheritance tax on 240 million won. On the other hand, if taxation is made with the revised estate acquisition tax, the basic deduction is applied to the '500 million won' each of the three people will receive, rather than the total inheritance amount of '1.5 billion won', so the three heirs will inherit the full 500 million won each without separate inheritance tax. This change system starts from drastically lowering the tax burden on the majority by reducing the obligation to jointly pay taxes. To this end, it must be reorganized with a focus on ‘necessary systems’. The basic tax credit system is maintained as is to minimize market confusion and shock caused by system conversion. It is designed to enable fairer and more reasonable taxation in the mid- to long-term. Also worth noting is the strengthening of the effectiveness of the personal exemption system. Families with multiple direct children, those with assets worth 500 to 300 million won, and heirs with a high proportion of financial assets are expected to be the biggest beneficiaries. This is because the basic deduction for children has been adjusted to reflect actual conditions, and the system has been supplemented so that spouses can receive deduction benefits within the scope of their actual inherited assets. As a result, the key is to ensure that the inheritance tax burden does not substantially arise when assets below a certain standard are transferred to family members. For example, if you inherit 1 billion won to your spouse and 500 million won to your children, the entire amount can be transferred without tax. During inheritance-related consultations, many inquiries are received from corporate officials. This is because the scale of inheritance is significant and the system is complex. In this amendment, the existing material deduction system, such as family business inheritance deduction, financial property deduction, and cohabitation housing inheritance deduction, is maintained. This decision takes into account the tax burden on small and medium-sized businesses that have been operating for a long time or holders of real assets, and appears to be aimed at ensuring that the economic foundation is not shaken during the system transition process. Measures to increase tax payment convenience are also being taken. Even if the division of inherited property is not completed within the reporting deadline, a method of postponing the division deadline for up to 9 months and allowing revision of the tax amount according to the division details confirmed within that period is being considered. This is a reasonable improvement plan considering cases in which discussions on division of inherited property are delayed in reality. Attorney Ja-young Yoon of Daeryun Law Firm said, “In addition, measures to respond to the possibility of tax avoidance have also been included,” adding, “Various complementary measures will be prepared, such as extending the exclusion period for imposition of false division (the period during which national or local taxes must be exercised) from the current 10 years to 15 years and establishing a special case for comparative taxation for bypass inheritance. In particular, “It is expected that taxation methods will be overhauled for indirect inheritance using for-profit corporations, so it is necessary to proceed with the above matters with legal assistance from tax and inheritance experts.” Global Epic CP Lee Soo-hwan / lsh@globalepic.co.kr Inheritance tax ‘major surgery’ after 75 years… The biggest beneficiary is (link)

The CEO of an electronic device company who was sued by a rival company for selling a recorder that was visually similar to a patented ballpoint recorder was cleared of the charges. Incheon Gyeyang Police Station recently decided not to prosecute Mr. A, in his 30s, who was accused of violating the patent law. Mr. A was accused of selling a product similar to the recorder for which Company B applied for a patent last year. Company B sent a proof of content to Mr. A to stop selling the recorder or pay a license fee, but when Mr. A did not respond, it sued for violation of patent law. Mr. A completely denied the charges, saying that the recorder he was selling was designed in consultation with a patent attorney from the development stage to prevent legal disputes and patent infringement. At the same time, he argued, "Company B's patent is for the basic structure, not a special technical element, so the claim of violation of the patent law does not stand. If patent infringement is recognized based on wording and some elements, technological development will be hindered in all industries." The police judged infringement under the patent law only on the technical elements specified in the claims, and Company B's complaint was deemed to be outside of these patent rights. Mr. A's legal representative, Attorney Cho Min-woo of Daeryun Law Firm, said, "According to the Supreme Court precedent, “The patent right is protected as a whole combining the listed components,” he explained. “Because each component is not protected separately, Company B’s claim does not comply with the basic principles of patent law.” He also said, “Although the two products look similar to the naked eye, there are differences in detailed technologies such as the USB-C type, elastic bias operation plate, and PCB protective film. Mr. A’s product does not fall within the rights claimed by Company B, and we were cleared of the charges by objectively proving this.” Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] Representative of electronics company accused of patent infringement on ballpoint recorder, acquitted... Proof of Technology Difference (Shortcut)

Former Chief Prosecutor Hwang Jong-geun (28th Judicial Research and Training Institute) joined Daeryun Law Firm (Kim Kuk-il and Go Byeong-jun, CEO). Former Chief Prosecutor Hwang is a person known as a ‘strong case’ for taking on various powerful cases, including the case of Cho Hee-pal, a rare fraud convict. Daeryun announced on the 28th that it plans to further strengthen its criminal case capabilities through the recruitment of Attorney Hwang. After being appointed as a prosecutor at the Changwon District Prosecutors’ Office, Attorney Hwang After working at Incheon District Prosecutors' Office and Cheongju District Prosecutors' Office, he served as deputy chief prosecutor at Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office and chief prosecutor at Daegu District Prosecutors' Office and Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office. With over 25 years of legal experience, he was in charge of the so-called ‘Cho Hee-pal case’, which is considered the largest multi-level case in Korea, while working at the Daegu District Prosecutors’ Office. He, who has mainly handled violent cases, was recognized for his expertise and was registered as a criminal law lawyer by the Korean Bar Association. In addition, when he worked at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office in 2016, he received attention for helping an elderly person suffering from dementia to be designated a guardian. At the time, the problem was not resolved due to the lack of guidelines within the relevant organizations, but thanks to his efforts, the process was able to be completed quickly. In particular, this is significant as it is the first case in which the court accepted the prosecution's request for an adult guardianship system after the enforcement of the revised Civil Act. Attorney Hwang Jong-geun said, "I have carried out cases honestly and uprightly with the motto 'Do not deceive yourself,'" and added, "I believe that the best results will come if you approach any case strategically from start to finish. Based on my experience in handling various cases, I will provide optimal legal services to my clients." “With the recruitment of Attorney Hwang, who has been in charge of the case, we expect to be able to further enhance our criminal case capabilities, including investigation and response,” he said. “Daeryun plans to continue recruiting experts in each field to provide high-quality legal services in the future.” Meanwhile, Daeryun, which provides specialized legal services with specialized groups in each field, ranked 9th in terms of sales in the law firm industry last year and joined the ranks of large law firms. Lawissue reporter Jeon Yong-mo sisalaw@lawissue.co.kr[View full article] Roishu - Former chief prosecutor Hwang Jong-geun, a ‘strong force’ in the investigation of the Jo Hee-pal case, joins Daeryun Law Firm (Go to the link) Legal News - Daeryun Law Firm Recruits Former Chief Prosecutor Hwang Jong-geun (Click here) Korea Economic Daily - Former chief prosecutor Hwang Jong-geun and Dae-ryun join in the 'Cho Hee-pal case' [Law & Biz Briefing] (Shortcut) Korea Economic Daily - Former Chief Prosecutor Hwang Jong-geun, a ‘strong force’ in the investigation of the Jo Hee-pal case, joins Daeryun Law Firm (Go to the link)

Another employee was sent to a formal trial in response to a request for a summary order to disclose a co-worker's past history. “Failure to recognize the possibility of transmission.” The court upheld the original judgment. An employee who was put on trial on charges of disclosing a co-worker's abortion without consent was found not guilty in the first trial and also in the appeals court. On the 7th of last month, the Chuncheon District Court held an appellate sentencing hearing for Ms. A, a woman in her 20s who was indicted on charges of defamation and acquitted in the first trial, and the original trial and They were both found not guilty. In 2024, during an argument with fellow employee B, Mr. A was accused of defamation by saying that B had had an abortion in the past in front of other employees. Mr. A acknowledged all of his actions but argued that the crime of defamation did not apply. This is because the employee who heard the remarks at the time maintained a close relationship with Mr. B, so there was no possibility of spreading the contents to a third party. The prosecution requested a summary order of a fine of 500,000 won from Mr. A. However, the court referred this to a formal trial, and he was found not guilty in the first trial. The first trial court explained, “The employee who heard the argument between the two people maintained a close relationship with the victim,” and “The defendant may not have been aware that his remarks could be spread to others through this employee.” He added, “Considering the fact that the employee in question did not spread the word to a third party, it is difficult to say that the defendant’s remarks were performance-based and intentional.” The prosecution, which was dissatisfied with this, filed an appeal, but it was dismissed in the second trial. The appellate court also upheld the original judgment, saying, “It is difficult to conclude that the defendant was aware that the remarks would be spread through the employee in question.” Attorney Gil Se-cheol of Daeryun Law Firm, representing Mr. A, said, “In defamation cases, when performance is acknowledged on the grounds of the possibility of spread, an unwritten intention to act despite knowing the risk of spread is necessary.” He added, “Mr. He said, “Because we did not recognize that it could be spread, the intention to fail to write was not established.” Digital Content Team[View full article] Employee accused of defamation by saying “I had an abortion”… ‘Not guilty’ in the appeal trial (Shortcut)

These days, the ‘LIBRA incident’ is one of the biggest topics in the coin industry. There are even rumors that this incident is causing a chill in the coin market again. Immediately after the launch of the Libra Mimcoin* on February 14, Argentine President Javier Millais publicly supported Libra on his social media. Immediately after Millay's post, the price of Libra seemed to soar, but it plummeted shortly thereafter. It was a sharp drop of 94% from the highest price. As expected, I didn't buy it by listening to acquaintances... *Meme coin: A cryptocurrency created by being inspired by Internet memes or trends, the price of which fluctuates based on community and trends rather than technical value. In the coin industry, there are suspicions of insider trading over the Libra incident. Hayden Davis, CEO of Kelsier Ventures, an investment company that led the Libra project, said immediately after the incident regarding suspicions of insider trading, "Meme coin insider trading is illegal. No (Insider trading in memecoins is not illegal, and in fact, all KOLs around the world make money that way),” he said, intensifying the controversy. Hayden Davis is not necessarily wrong in saying this, and it is still in a gray area of uncertainty as to whether memecoins are subject to insider trading regulations. In the United States, when the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) classifies assets as securities, insider trading is regulated under the Securities Act, so there is no question of whether memecoins are securities. There can be discussion. Related controversies have already continued through the 'Ripple Incident' and 'Terraform Labs Incident'. If Korean law is applied, MEMCOIN will be defined as a 'virtual asset' under the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, making insider trading illegal. According to the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, 'virtual asset' refers to an electronic token that has 'economic value' and can be traded or transferred electronically. Non-fungible electronic tokens, such as NFTs, that are mainly for collection are excluded from virtual assets, but can be recognized as virtual assets if they can be used as a means of payment for specific goods or services. Hayden Davis emphasized that unlike other virtual currencies, meme coins do not have 'practicality'. In reality, meme coins have significantly lower practicality and usability and are mainly used for speculation, investment, or participation in specific communities. Therefore, some believe that since meme coins are rarely used as currency, they are excluded from virtual assets like NFTs, which are for collection purposes. However, the 'economic value' mentioned in the Virtual Asset User Protection Act cannot necessarily be seen as including practicality, and in fact, even if it is a meme coin, some such as Dogecoin are used as a payment method in online shopping malls or for donation activities. In other words, as long as it is a 'coin', the practicality itself exists, even if the level may be low. In addition, as long as MEMCOIN is actively circulated in the coin market for investment purposes, it is clear that it is a virtual asset with economic value according to the Virtual Asset User Protection Act. MEMCOIN is a new type of asset that did not exist in the existing financial market. In a situation where even existing cryptocurrencies have not established a clear position in the traditional financial market, the boundaries of Memcoin are even more ambiguous. In this situation, Hayden Davis claimed that "Memcoin is 'impractical'" and "insider trading is allowed," sparking discussion about the nature of Memcoin. In many ways, the Libra scandal suggests important issues in how the crypto market operates and the direction of regulation, and will serve as another opportunity for future market changes. And in the ever-changing virtual currency market, I once again reminded myself that investing based solely on what others say can be quite risky.[View full article] [Column] Libra incident, once again drawing attention to the uniqueness of the coin market (Go here)

One of the most notable online promotional tools in the lawyer industry these days is ‘CPC (Cost Per Click)’ advertising. The cost is calculated based on the number of times a customer clicks on an ad, and the unit price is higher for popular keywords with higher search volume. Advertisers engage in fierce bidding competition to ensure that their advertisements are displayed at the top of search engines and advertising platforms. Lawyers also appear not to be free from competition. This is because advertising expenses are a key factor in accepting cases. The problem is that there is a high risk that these CPC advertisements will undermine the essence of legal services. As advertising competition intensifies, commercialization of the legal market accelerates, and as the cost burden increases, lawyers are likely to try to compensate by raising fees. In particular, the CPC unit price has been rising rapidly in the domestic legal market recently, and in the case of popular keywords with high search demand such as ‘divorce’ and ‘criminal litigation,’ the price per click is known to be around 100,000 won. Even if clicks are made just 500 times a day, advertising costs of 50 million won are spent. The structural problem of CPC advertising should not be overlooked. As it is a system that requires large amounts of advertising expenses to achieve top exposure, polarization surrounding advertising expenses can become extreme even within the lawyer industry. Lawyers who find it difficult to cover advertising costs ranging from at least several million won to up to hundreds of millions of won do not even have the opportunity to contact clients online. It is not only lawyers who are adversely affected. Users also continue to see advertisements from specific lawyers who have successfully bid on high prices, which can lead to problems with limited options. Therefore, I believe that certain regulations are needed in the current CPC advertising market. This is because we must prevent the lawyer advertising market from being reorganized around capital power. However, unilateral and unconditional regulations may infringe on the constitutional values ​​of freedom of expression and freedom of occupation, so they must be approached with caution. I think the most realistic solution at present is to have law firms that conduct CPC advertising form a self-regulatory council. This is a method of having people voluntarily create advertising-related guidelines and encourage them to comply with them. Daeryun Law Firm, to which the author belongs, is willing to participate if the Bar Association takes the lead in forming such a consultative body, and hopes that the Bar Association will suggest a better plan if there is one. With the development of information and communication technology, the expansion of the mobile environment, and the emergence of AI, the channels through which citizens use legal services are also diversifying as times change. In the lawyer industry, ‘online promotion’ is a trend of the times that is no longer difficult to deny. However, there is an important value that should never be forgotten. These are ‘publicness’ and ‘economic equity.’ It is time to begin close monitoring and autonomous regulation of the overheated CPC advertising market so that the burden of advertising costs is not passed on to clients.[View full article] [Contribution] ‘CPC advertising’ is overheating in the lawyer industry, raising concerns about damage to public nature (Click here)