사설 바카라

1. Case Overview

a. Party Represented by Barun Law
Stock Blind Trust Review Committee of the Ministry of Personnel Management

b. Background
After reviewing the job-relatedness of shares held by the plaintiff who had assumed office as president of a local public enterprise and by related parties, the Stock Blind Trust Review Committee of the Ministry of Personnel Management determined that the shares were 사설 바카라. As a result, the plaintiff and others became obligated to sell the shares or place them in a blind trust.

c. Lawsuit
The plaintiff filed suit, asserting that job-relatedness of the shares should not have been recognized, or that even if partial job-relatedness were assumed, the decision unlawfully deviated from or abused discretionary authority because it severely infringed upon the plaintiff's property rights and the right to hold public office.


2. Judgment

The court determined that job-relatedness existed between the shares held by the plaintiff and the plaintiff's official duties, held that the decision of the Stock Blind Trust Review Committee was lawful, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim.


3. Grounds for the Judgment

The court held that:
There was recognized potential for direct or indirect access to information related to the shares and the possibility of exercising influence in connection with the plaintiff's official duties.
Although the requirement to sell the shares imposed a restriction on the plaintiff's property rights and right to hold public office, such restriction did not violate the principle of proportionality and therefore did not constitute a deviation from or abuse of discretionary authority.


4. Our Arguments and Role

(1) We actively argued and substantiated that there was a close relationship between the business of the company whose shares were held by the plaintiff and related parties and the plaintiff's official duties, thereby establishing the possibility of direct or indirect access to relevant information and the potential to exercise influence.

(2) We asserted and demonstrated that, even if the plaintiff's property rights were restricted, such restriction was an appropriate and unavoidable measure necessary to protect the integrity and non-corruptibility of public office and thus did not violate the principle of proportionality.


5. Significance of the Judgment

This judgment is significant in that it provides standards and direction for determining job-relatedness particularly the criteria concerning the possibility of direct or indirect access to share-related information and the potential to exercise influence between the official duties of a public enterprise president and the shares of a specific company.


□ Attorneys in charge: Choi Young-chan, Kim Yu-jin