Attorney Choi Jin-Sook was appointed as a member of the Consignment-Subcontract Dispute Mediation Council of the Korea Commission for Corporate Partnership for a term from January 12, 2026 to September 28, 2027.

Attorney Cho Jae-Bin is to take part as a designated discussant at the Sentencing Committee's 21st Public Hearing on the "Proposed Sentencing Guidelines for Money Laundering Offenses" to be held at the first-floor auditorium of the Supreme Court of Korea on February 27, 2026.

Attorney Kim Hyeon-Jung was appointed as a member of the Public Officials Ethics Committee of the Constitutional Court for a term from January 1, 2026 to December 31, 2027.

Attorney Park Sung-Ho was appointed as a member of the Constitutional Law and Constitutional Adjudication System Research Committee for a term from February 6, 2026 to February 5, 2027.

Attorney Jo Dong-Hyun (Chairman of the Insolvency Lawyers Association) presided over the 6th Board Meeting and New Year Reception of the Insolvency Lawyers Association of the Korean Bar Association on January 20, 2026. At the meeting, Attorney Jo led a discussion on i) reviewing the "Application for Permission to File Lawsuit (Form 2-43)" currently distributed by the Seoul Bankruptcy Court, (ii) examining the need for an evaluation system for institutions involved in rehabilitation proceedings, (iii) preparing research report on the CRO system, (iv) promoting exchange with the Bankruptcy Legislation Review Committee under the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, (v) holding a joint symposium with related academic societies and research groups in 2026, and (vi) discussing the composition, necessity, and deliberations body for a panel of applicant representatives.

Attorney Choi Young-Chan was appointed as an Interview Panel Member for Civil Service Recruitment of the Broadcasting, Media and Communications Commission (formerly the Korea Communications Commission). In this position, Attorney Choi participated as an interview panel member in the selection process for Professional Fixed-Term Position Lawyers (equivalent to Grade 5) at the Broadcasting, Media and Communications Commission.

1. 바카라 사이트 꽁머니 Overviewa. Party Represented by Barun Law The defendant construction company acting as the contractor in a resort development project financed through project finance (PF). b. Background of the 바카라 사이트 꽁머니 The construction company, having been delegated authority by the project developer, sub-delegated such authority to Company A. Company A subsequently entered into a commercial facilities MD (merchandising) service agreement with the plaintiff. After the resort development project fell through, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against both Company A and the construction company, seeking payment of the service fees. c. Claims and Proceedings The plaintiff argued that even if the construction company was not a direct party to the service agreement, it should nevertheless bear liability in its capacity equivalent to that of the project developer, and applied to have Company A's Vice President examined as a witness. The Vice President of Company A testified unfavorably, stating to the effect that the construction company managed the service agreement and therefore should bear full responsibility. 2. JudgmentWhile the court acknowledged the liability of Company A, it dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the defendant construction company. 3. Grounds for the JudgmentThe court held that:it was difficult to conclude that the plaintiff had actually performed services such as directly establishing leasing and operation strategies for the commercial facilities or planning the tenant mix pursuant to the MD service agreement; although the commercial facilities' MD composition could have been provided free of charge if lease agreements were concluded with prospective tenants, it was abnormal for the plaintiff to be paid a substantial amount of service fees separately; and Company A failed to properly report the execution and contents of the MD service agreement to the defendant construction company. 4. Our Arguments and Role We closely reviewed the sub-delegation agreement, the MD service agreement, and the MD service reports, identified inconsistencies among them, and emphasized during the witness examination that the contract executed between Company A and the plaintiff was abnormal. 5. Significance of the JudgmentIn the course of PF projects, numerous service agreements are often executed through multiple layers of delegation and sub-delegation. When a PF project collapses, service agreements that PF participants may not have fully accounted for can surface, giving rise to unexpected claims for service fees. Even in such cases, service fees should not be readily recognized; rather, it is necessary to examine, step by step, whether the service agreement violates the essential nature of a mandate and whether the purported service outcomes are genuine. This judgment reaffirmed a fundamental yet critically important principle. □ Attorneys in charge: Park Soon-kwan, Hur Kyung-bum, Kim So-yeon

1. 바카라 사이트 꽁머니 Overviewa. Party Represented by Barun Law Barun Law represented Ms. A, a person with an intellectual disability, who was the first whistleblower and the primary victim, having suffered habitual sexual assault and physical abuse for nearly ten years at the hands of the director of the Saekdongwon welfare facility for persons with disabilities located in Ganghwa-gun, Incheon. b. Background of the 바카라 사이트 꽁머니 The facility director, Mr. Kim, abused his absolute authority to habitually violate severely intellectually disabled residents who lacked the capacity to resist. In particular, when victims attempted to resist, he committed sadistic acts such as throwing glass cups and causing lacerations to their heads. Due to the inherent characteristics of sexual crimes against persons with disabilities occurring in enclosed environments, evidentiary proof was extremely difficult. Nevertheless, our attorneys created a decisive turning point that initiated the investigation and brought the truth of the 바카라 사이트 꽁머니 to light. c. Investigation Strategy and Outcome Rather than following the conventional approach of filing a criminal complaint with the local police station at the outset, our attorneys adopted an unconventional strategy by directly providing intelligence to the Women-Targeted Crime Investigation Unit of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, a specialized division for sexual crimes against persons with disabilities. Through sophisticated legal advocacy and persistent urging for the issuance of an arrest warrant, we ultimately succeeded in securing the issuance and execution of an arrest warrant against the suspect, Mr. Kim. 2. Our Arguments and Role "Fastening the First Button with Investigative Expertise, and Proving a Silenced Truth Through Evidence" Leveraging professional expertise as a former police investigation team leader, the attorney went beyond conventional legal representation and acted as a strategic architect of the entire investigation. Taking into account the suspect's local influence and the unique characteristics of the 바카라 사이트 꽁머니, we deliberately chose to provide intelligence to the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency rather than the local police. This was a decisive strategic move that enabled a discreet and swift investigation without alerting the suspect, thereby ensuring the fairness and independence of the investigation. In addition, rather than relying solely on the victim's testimony, we secured and submitted objective physical evidence to the police, including medical certificates and outpatient records containing expert medical opinions regarding sexual abuse. This bolstered the credibility of the intellectually disabled victim's testimony and provided strong investigative momentum. Based on the primary victim's statements, we continuously proposed to investigative authorities that further investigations be conducted into former employees and other residents of the facility. As the investigation expanded, a total of six victims were identified, including three officially recognized victims of sexual assault and additional victims of physical abuse, thereby establishing the 바카라 사이트 꽁머니 as a large-scale abuse-of-power sexual crime. We submitted detailed written opinions urging detention, meticulously arguing the risk of evidence destruction, flight, and further harm to victims, and emphasized that the 바카라 사이트 꽁머니 carried an anticipated sentence exceeding ten years of imprisonment, ultimately succeeding in having the suspect detained. 3. Outcome and Significance"Punishing a Truth That Was Nearly Buried Through Detention, and Realizing Judicial Justice for the Socially Vulnerable" This 바카라 사이트 꽁머니 stands as a landmark example demonstrating how an attorney's strategic judgment can bring an end to deeply entrenched wrongdoing within a closed welfare facility. A 바카라 사이트 꽁머니 that might otherwise have been treated perfunctorily and buried by local investigative authorities was elevated, through close coordination with the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, into what became known as the "Incheon-version Dogani" 바카라 사이트 꽁머니, culminating in the arrest of the suspect—the best possible outcome. In particular, by representing intellectually disabled victims with limited cognitive abilities, we systematically structured their statements within a legal framework and secured corroborating evidence, thereby completely preventing secondary victimization through custodial investigation. By relentlessly pursuing inhumane crimes committed over a span of ten years, we proved through professional expertise and skill that "the law protects even those at the very bottom," thereby realizing substantive judicial justice. □ Attorneys in charge: Ko Eun-young, Hong Seong-won

1. Case Overviewa. Party Represented by Barun Law A subcontractor and its officers and employees. b. Background of the Case In or around April 2023, at the construction site of a newly built urban multi-family housing project in Seoul, a worker performing completion-cleaning services using a suspended scaffold fell and died. The competent labor authority conducted intensive investigations into not only the completion-cleaning service provider, but also the subcontractor that had entered into the service contract, as well as the subcontractor's CEO, safety manager, and administrative personnel. 2. Our Arguments and RoleUnder the contractual structure of the project, the subcontractor had been subcontracted by the main contractor solely for reinforced concrete works. However, due to site-specific circumstances, joint management between the subcontractor and the main contractor was unavoidable. As a result, the main contractor's site manager and safety manager also handled safety management for the subcontractor, and likewise, the main contractor's administrative personnel shared responsibility for the subcontractor's administrative tasks. We emphasized that, in substance, all occupational safety and health management duties at the construction site were entirely carried out by the main contractor, and ultimately succeeded in obtaining a decision to close the internal investigation without charges. 3. Outcome and SignificanceBecause the subcontractor was the entity that had directly entered into the service contract with the accident-involved company, this was a case in which the subcontractor faced a high likelihood of criminal liability regardless of whether the main contractor bore responsibility. Nevertheless, we focused its defense on the fact that occupational safety and health management was, in reality, fully handled by the main contractor rather than the subcontractor. As a result, the competent labor authority and prosecution exceptionally decided to close the internal investigation with a finding of no suspicion not only for alleged violations of the Serious Accidents Punishment 바카라 사이트 꽁머니, but also for violations of the Occupational Safety and Health 바카라 사이트 꽁머니. This case demonstrates that even where a company has ordered services, if it is difficult to conclude that the company substantively assumed responsibility for occupational safety and health management based on the actual conditions at the site, there remains the possibility of non-indictment. It is therefore a meaningful precedent for future similar cases. □ Attorneys in charge: Lee Sang-jin, Park Sung-ho, Jung Sang-tae, Kang Tae-hun, Kim Ji-hee, Lee Yun-sang, Jeong Eun-ha, Oh Se-jun, Han Min-kuk

1. Case Overviewa. Party Represented by Barun Law A subcontractor and its officers and employees. b. Background of the Case Company A (the client) is a specialized construction company that had been subcontracted by a major construction firm to perform mechanical works as part of a mixed-use development project. In March 2025, a tragic accident occurred at the site in which a worker employed by another subcontractor was struck and killed by residual concrete debris that fell from above while the worker was performing exterior wall work using an aerial work platform. Investigative authorities initiated an investigation on the premise that debris generated by Company A's work may have fallen and caused the accident, based on the fact that Company A was performing "dry core drilling work" on the upper floors above the accident site at the time of the incident. Accordingly, Company A became subject to investigation on charges of violating the Occupational Safety and Health 바카라 사이트 꽁머니 and causing death by an industrial accident under the Serious Accidents Punishment 바카라 사이트 꽁머니. 2. Our Arguments and RoleThis case presented a serious risk that Company A could be held responsible, given the strong circumstantial evidence that the timing of the accident coincided with the timing of the upper-floor work. We therefore focused on severing the causal link between the accident and the client's work through analysis of objective physical evidence. We analyzed the structure of the "dry core drill bit" used by Company A at the time of the accident, as well as work footage, demonstrating that the cut concrete core would be lodged inside the bit, making natural falling of debris highly unlikely. We further substantiated, through worker statements and other evidence, that residual materials were separately collected and disposed of after completion of the work. From a legal perspective, we also strongly argued that the deceased was an employee of another company with no employment relationship with Company A, and therefore Company A did not owe a duty of safety measures as an "employer" under the Occupational Safety and Health 바카라 사이트 꽁머니. Moreover, we asserted that Company A and the deceased worker's employer were merely in a horizontal contractual relationship, each having been independently contracted by the same main contractor, and that Company A therefore bore no liability as a contractor. 3. Outcome and SignificanceThis case involved a situation in which the client faced the risk of unjust criminal liability based solely on circumstantial overlap between the location of the accident and the timing of work. In particular, following the enforcement of the Serious Accidents Punishment 바카라 사이트 꽁머니, investigative authorities have applied strict standards to construction-site fatality cases, making defense especially challenging. Nevertheless, we focused our defense on the absence of a plausible causal relationship between the work performed by Company A and the victim's death. As a result, the competent labor authority and prosecution exceptionally decided to close the internal investigation with a finding of no suspicion not only for alleged violations of the Serious Accidents Punishment 바카라 사이트 꽁머니, but also for violations of the Occupational Safety and Health 바카라 사이트 꽁머니. This case demonstrates that even where investigative authorities harbor strong suspicions due to temporal proximity between work and an accident, a scientific analysis of the structural characteristics of work tools and the physical properties of on-site evidence can clearly establish the absence of causation, thereby allowing for non-indictment. It is a precedent worthy of reference in future falling-object accident cases. □ Attorneys in charge: Lee Sang-jin, Kang Tae-hun, Kim Ji-hee, Lee Yun-sang, Han Min-guk

1. Case OverviewWhile investigating allegations that KT Cloud, an affiliate of the KT Group, had acquired Spark & Associates (Spark, now OpenCloudLab), a vehicle cloud service company, at an inflated price, the prosecution indicted the then-representative directors of KT and KT Cloud on charges of breach of trust. In the course of that investigation, the prosecution also conducted an intensive investigation into the former CEO of Hyundai AutoEver (the "Client"), alleging that the Client had received improper solicitations and accepted money and valuables from third parties in order to facilitate the overpriced acquisition. During the investigation, the prosecution requested the Client's cooperation, and the Client voluntarily submitted his mobile phone. Based on information extracted from the phone, the prosecution identified separate allegations unrelated to the acquisition agreement, asserting that the Client had received improper solicitations from representatives of cooperating companies regarding maintenance of business relationships and preferential treatment in supply transactions, and had received economic benefits totaling nearly KRW 800 million, including corporate card usage and cash (separate breach-of-trust bribery charges). On this basis, the prosecution sought an arrest warrant and ultimately indicted the Client on charges including breach-of-trust bribery, concealment of criminal proceeds, violations of the 바카라 사이트 꽁머니 on External Audit of Stock Companies, and violations of the Capital Markets 바카라 사이트 꽁머니. 2. Our Arguments and RoleAt the investigation stage, the prosecution applied for an arrest warrant, citing the large amount allegedly received by the Client. We argued for exclusion of illegally obtained evidence with respect to the separate breach-of-trust bribery charges, asserting that:(1) the Client had submitted his mobile phone solely to cooperate with the investigation into the primary case (the breach-of-trust case involving the former KT CEO related to the Spark acquisition); (2) the Client's substantive participation rights were excluded at the time of submission; (3) after the submission, the prosecution extracted evidence related to the separate breach-of-trust bribery charges without obtaining a separate search and seizure warrant; (4) the prosecution conducted searches and seizures of alleged bribers based on such unlawfully obtained evidence; and (5) the prosecution used such evidence in ways that suggested the existence of separate-case evidence when obtaining written statements from the Client and other related parties. We also actively demonstrated that there had been no improper solicitation in substance, and successfully secured the dismissal of the arrest warrant application. At the trial stage, we further brought to light the illegality of the prosecution's separate investigation by filing motions for inspection and copying of investigative records not submitted as evidence, conducting documentary evidence examinations, and examining related witnesses. We persuasively argued that all derivative evidence, such as prosecutorial statements of related parties, in-court testimony, and evidence obtained through searches and seizures of alleged bribers, was inadmissible. We also advanced multifaceted arguments on the merits to demonstrate the absence of any improper solicitation. The court accepted all of our arguments and rendered a verdict of complete acquittal on all charges, including breach-of-trust bribery, concealment of criminal proceeds, violations of the 바카라 사이트 꽁머니 on External Audit of Stock Companies, and violations of the Capital Markets 바카라 사이트 꽁머니. 3. Outcome and SignificanceBy logically applying the principle that electronic information voluntarily submitted cannot be used to seize irrelevant evidence beyond the submitter's intent, and that derivative evidence obtained therefrom is likewise inadmissible, we achieved the best possible outcome of a complete acquittal tailored to the specific facts of the case. This decision constitutes an important precedent for assessing the illegality of separate-case evidence obtained from voluntarily submitted electronic information in future cases. □ Attorneys in charge: Kim Yong-ha, Jeon Gi-cheol, Koh Jin-won, Lee Yun-sang, Park Jun-woo

1. Case Overviewa. Party Represented by Barun Law We represented the CEO of a KOSDAQ-listed company who had been indicted in custody for violations of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets 바카라 사이트 꽁머니. b. Background of the Case The client, as the CEO of a KOSDAQ-listed company, sought to engage in a biotechnology business and, to that end, conducted a valuation of an intangible asset, namely, an "anticancer drug", owned by a Canadian biotechnology company. Afterward, the client entered into a contract to acquire the relevant intangible asset and disclosed the transaction. Subsequently, during an external audit, the listed company received a disclaimer of audit opinion due to issues including the appropriateness of the valuation amount of the biotechnology intangible asset, which led to a suspension of trading of the company's shares. In this situation, the client proceeded with a corporate spin-off and merger of the listed company and transferred the intangible asset to a subsidiary, which was later listed on the K-OTC market. c. Charges The prosecution alleged that the client made false disclosures regarding the valuation of the biotechnology intangible asset, and, despite lacking any intent or ability to continue the biotechnology business, used it solely as a means of boosting the share price. The prosecution asserted that the client created the appearance that the intangible asset had appropriate value and exaggerated the prospects of successful business operations, thereby using false statements or representations regarding material matters in connection with the trading of financial investment products to obtain unjust gains of approximately KRW 9.2 billion (fraudulent unfair trading). In addition, the prosecution alleged that the client made false statements regarding the status of the subsidiary when filing a securities registration statement in the course of the listed company's corporate spin-off (false statements in a securities registration statement), failed to submit a securities registration statement during the merger of the subsidiary (failure to submit a securities registration statement), and obstructed business by deceiving the K-OTC officer into listing the subsidiary on the K-OTC market as if all concerns regarding going-concern issues had been fully resolved, even though the officer had initially refused the K-OTC registration on the grounds of going-concern uncertainty (obstruction of business). On the basis of these allegations, the prosecution indicted the client in custody and, after a trial lasting two years and six months, sought a heavy sentence of six years' imprisonment, a fine of approximately KRW 23.8 billion, and forfeiture of approximately KRW 2.9 billion. 2. Our Arguments and RoleWe meticulously reviewed an enormous volume of evidence records running into tens of thousands of pages and conducted a thorough analysis of the legal principles governing violations of the Capital Markets 바카라 사이트 꽁머니 and obstruction of business. Based on this work, we advanced the following core defenses (1) Regarding the charge of fraudulent unfair trading: We focused on the fact that neither the applicable statutory provisions nor the factual allegations set forth in the indictment were specified at all, and that the alleged conspiracy among the defendants and the specific acts of execution were likewise unspecified. We argued that these defects constituted grounds for dismissal of the indictment due to lack of specificity of the charged facts. Furthermore, we actively demonstrated, through objective materials such as valuation reports prepared by external institutions, overseas business travel records, and emails, that the acquisition of the intangible asset was carried out properly and lawfully, and that the listed company possessed sufficient human and material resources to engage in the biotechnology business. (2) Regarding the charge of failure to submit a securities registration statement: We identified the issue of the "subject of the 바카라 사이트 꽁머니 (the person subject to punishment)," which other co-defendants' counsel had failed to detect, and persuasively argued before the court that, because the client had already resigned from the position of CEO of the subsidiary at the time of the alleged offense, the client could not qualify as the subject of this status-based crime. (3) Regarding the charge of obstruction of business: Through witness examination, we established that the person who actually used the allegedly deceptive expressions cited by the prosecution was a third party unrelated to the client, thereby proving that the client neither conspired in nor directed any acts constituting obstruction of business. 3. JudgmentOf the four charges brought against the client, the court acquitted the client of three charges, specifically, fraudulent unfair trading, failure to submit a securities registration statement, and obstruction of business and, with respect to the remaining charge, significantly reduced the prosecution's sentencing request and imposed only a fine of KRW 10 million. No forfeiture was ordered. 4. Significance of the JudgmentThe client, who had served as both the CEO of a KOSDAQ-listed company and the CEO of its subsidiary, faced a grave crisis in which the client could have been convicted of fraudulent unfair trading tantamount to stock price manipulation, potentially resulting in imprisonment as well as fines and forfeiture amounting to hundreds of billions of won. However, immediately after being taken into custody, the client retained Barun Law, which possesses extensive expertise in Capital Markets 바카라 사이트 꽁머니 violations and prosecutorial investigative practice. We persistently demonstrated the impropriety of the indictment by precisely identifying the structural flaws in the prosecution's investigation, the lack of specificity of the charged facts, and the inherent contradictions therein. The court accepted our arguments, acknowledged that grounds existed for dismissal of certain charges due to lack of specificity, and rendered acquittals on the basis that innocence had been clearly established through the trial proceedings. Moreover, contrary to the prosecution's request for a custodial sentence of six years, the court greatly limited the scope of the client's responsibility and imposed only a minor fine of KRW 10 million. This case enabled the client to recover his reputation by being cleared of most of the charges for which he had been indicted in custody, and to completely avoid an economic burden amounting to hundreds of billions of won. □ Attorneys in charge: Choi Seung-hwan, Kang Da-rong, Han Min-guk

The column, "The content industry should actively pursue ESG management" written by Attorney Park Sang-Oh has been published in Metro Seoul.

The column, "Hopes and concerns for the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court" written by Attorney Chung In-Jin has been published in The Kyunghyang Shinmun.

The column, "Whether a fiduciary duty to a financial institution can be recognized under a project finance loan agreement" written by Attorney Woo Hyun-Soo has been published in DNews.

The column, "No-fault reimbursements should be considered to resolve the issue involving avoidance of essential medical 바카라 사이트 꽁머니" written by Attorney Kim Kyung-Soo has been published in The Segye Ilbo.

The column, "Can a store’s interior and exterior design function as a trademark?" written by Attorney Jung Young-Hun has been published in Food Journal.

The column, "Requirements to obtain and maintain leniency status" written by Attorney Chung Yang-Hun has been published  in The Law Times.