Attorney Jeong Dong-Min was appointed as a member of the Sixth Audit Advisory Committee of Korea Western Power Co., Ltd. His term will be from June 26, 2025 to June 25, 2027.

Attorney Choi Jin-Sook was reappointed as a legal advisor for the Korea Housing & Urban Guarantee Corporation. Her term will be from July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2027.

Attorney Cho Jae-Bin was appointed as a member of the Management and Budget Deliberation Committee for Financial Public Institutions under the Financial Services Commission in June 2025. The committee is responsible for evaluating the management performance of institutions such as the Korea Development Bank, Industrial Bank of Korea, Export-Import Bank of Korea, and the Korea Inclusive Finance Agency. It also reviews and approves the budgets of organizations including the Korea Asset Management Corporation, Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Korea Housing Finance Corporation.

Attorney Jung Jae-Hee was appointed as a member of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Local Tax Deliberation Committee in June 2025.

Attorney Choi Young-Chan was appointed as a document review committee member for the Career-Based Competitive Recruitment Examination for Fixed-Term Public Officials of the Seoul Metropolitan Government. In this role, Attorney Choi took part in the written evaluation of application materials submitted by candidates for the examination, which took place on July 8, 2025.

Attorney Kang Tae-Hun was appointed as a legal expert member of the Serious Accident Prevention Inspection Group at the Korea Environment Corporation. He will be providing legal advisory services to the Korea Environment Corporation on matters related to serious accident prevention and response from July 2025 to June 2027.

1. Case Overview In April 2023, at a new urban development site where a mixed-use facility was under construction, a worker employed by a subcontractor fell and died while measuring the size of a beam inside a ventilation shaft connected to the basement during electrical installation work. In response to the accident, the local labor office launched an internal investigation into the prime contractor on suspicion of violating the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Serious Accidents Punishment Act. The investigation involved rigorous questioning of key personnel at the prime contractor, including the CEO, the executive in charge of safety management, the site director, the site administrator, and the safety manager. 2. Our Arguments and Role We represented the prime contractor and presented the following arguments: 1. The subcontractor had not separately reported the measurement task, which led to the accident, to the prime contractor; 2. Although safety guardrails had been installed at the accident site, the subcontractor had arbitrarily dismantled them prior to starting work, which is an action the prime contractor could not have reasonably foreseen; 3. The prime contractor had taken necessary safety and health measures, such as risk assessments and regular safety inspections; however, due to the subcontractor conducting unplanned work in a short period of time, the prime contractor was unable to detect the activity; and 4. Electrical wiring work is considered specialized work, and under standard practice, once the prime contractor distributes the initial drawings, the subcontractor independently prepares the shop drawings and carries out the work without detailed instructions from the prime contractor regarding the specific work methods. We effectively argued and substantiated that the prime contractor and its personnel neither had the intent nor the reasonable foreseeability required to be held liable for the alleged violations. As a result, the local labor office accepted our arguments and decided not to initiate a case ("non-prosecution/internal investigation closed") for both the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Serious Accidents Punishment Act violations. 3. Result and Significance By thoroughly analyzing the cause of the accident, the methods used, and the background leading up to the work in question, we developed a tailored and logical defense strategy. This resulted in the best possible outcome (i.e., non-prosecution) for the client.

1. Case Overview a. Party Represented by Barun Law: The defendants indicted for violations of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (issuance of false tax invoices, etc.), namely Corporation A and its CEO, Mr. B. b. Background of the Case: Mr. B established Corporation A to import and distribute seafood products. At some point, Corporation A's largest client, Company C, requested Mr. B to issue inflated invoices under Corporation A's name in order to extend a loan. Relying on Company C's explanation that "as Corporation A and Company C are VAT-exempt businesses, they would not be punished even if the invoices were slightly inflated," Mr. B received false invoices amounting to approximately KRW 9.3 billion and issued false invoices totaling about KRW 10.7 billion, amounting to approximately KRW 20 billion in total. c. Details of the Proceedings: Corporation A and its CEO, Mr. B, were indicted for allegedly issuing or receiving false or unissued "tax invoices," and were charged under Article 10(1)(1), Article 10(2)(1), and Article 10(3)(1) of the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act, and Article 8-2(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes. We argued that: 1. Corporation A, being a VAT-exempt business, should be subject to Article 10(1)(2) and Article 10(3)(2) of the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act regarding the issuance or receipt of false "invoices," not "tax invoices"; 2. Some of the facts alleged under Article 10(2)(1) concerned actions that took place before the relevant provision was amended and therefore should not be punishable, necessitating withdrawal of those charges; 3. Mr. B lacked both intent and habitual conduct regarding tax evasion; and 4. Issuance of false "invoices" differs in nature from the issuance of false "tax invoices." We actively emphasized these mitigating factors and argued that Mr. B's fine should be subject to a suspension of sentence. 2. Judgment As a result, the court sentenced Mr. B to three years' imprisonment, suspended for four years, and rendered a suspension of sentence for the KRW 4.1 billion fine. Corporation A was fined KRW 20 million. 3. Our Role and Arguments We pointed out the incorrect application of legal provisions in the indictment, prompting the prosecution to amend and withdraw certain charges. We also emphasized that Mr. B lacked intent or habituality in committing tax evasion, that additional taxes were actually paid due to the issuance of false invoices, and that the issuance of false "invoices" is fundamentally different from that of "tax invoices." These arguments significantly contributed to Mr. B receiving a suspension of sentence for the fine. 4. Significance of the Judgment For VAT-exempt businesses, repeated transactions with multiple clients may lead to practices such as offsetting or issuing consolidated invoices for administrative convenience. However, following the 2018 amendment of the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act, even the issuance or receipt of false "invoices" (as opposed to "tax invoices") by VAT-exempt businesses can, depending on the amount involved, trigger the application of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, which requires the imposition of substantial fines. In this case, had a heavy fine been mandatorily imposed under the aggravated punishment act, it would have jeopardized the normal operation of Corporation A and even exposed Mr. B to the risk of imprisonment through confinement in lieu of payment. Our efforts resulted in a meaningful precedent recognizing that, in cases of false "invoice" issuance, not "tax invoice" issuance, by VAT-exempt businesses, the absence of intent or habituality in tax evasion can justify a suspension of sentence for the fine. This case is expected to serve as a useful reference for future matters involving violations of the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act or the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes.

1. Case Overview In or around 2021, Gangwondo Development Corporation initiated a public competitive bidding process to sell the Pyeongchang Alpensia Resort. However, during the sale process, allegations of collusion among bidders arose, leading to a search and seizure and an intensive investigation by the prosecution targeting the Corporation's CEO and other executives and employees on suspicion of bid rigging. The situation became particularly grave when the sale manager (lead underwriter) attempted to shift responsibility onto Gangwondo Development Corporation's executives and employees by providing false testimony, potentially exposing them to criminal liability. Faced with the risk of being unfairly prosecuted, the CEO and the Corporation's executives and employees engaged us to defend them and ensure they would not be wrongfully punished. 2. Key Legal Issue The central issue was whether the executives and employees of Gangwondo Development Corporation were aware of a high likelihood of collusion yet proceeded with the bidding process regardless. 3. Our Arguments and Role Upon being retained, we conducted a thorough analysis of the facts and evidence surrounding the bidding process. We established that Gangwondo Development Corporation had relied on the findings of the professional sale manager, both factual verifications and legal advice, when confirming the absence of collusion and proceeding with the bidding process. The sale manager's representatives later falsely testified that they had persistently raised concerns about possible collusion to the Corporation before and after the bidding process. In response, we submitted as evidence KakaoTalk messages, emails, and recorded Zoom meeting statements left by the sale manager’s personnel at the time, successfully disproving the credibility of their claims. We also argued that the Corporation's executives and employees had acted fairly and independently throughout the process, with no personal relationships with the sale manager or the participating bidders, and without any intent or unlawful collusion related to bid rigging. 4. Result and Significance The prosecution accepted our meticulous legal arguments and the supporting evidence, concluding that the CEO and executives and employees of Gangwondo Development Corporation had not committed bid rigging. As a result, while the prosecution indicted the Governor of Gangwon-do and the sale manager's representatives for bid rigging and related offenses, it decided not to indict the Corporation's CEO and employees. Despite being at serious risk of being indicted as co-conspirators in a bid-rigging case due to the false testimony of the sale manager, the clients were able to avoid criminal prosecution by engaging us, which demonstrated exceptional capability in the field of corporate criminal defense.

1. Case Overview and Key Issues - The Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) referred the case to the relevant investigative authority after discovering that approximately KRW 500 million had been transferred monthly from the account of an investment discretionary company operated by the client to the client's personal account, totaling over KRW 10 billion. - The case raised two major issues: (i) whether the company violated the minimum capital requirement (KRW 500 million or more) necessary to maintain its registration as an investment discretionary business under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act; and (ii) whether the transfers were made without any legal basis, thereby constituting criminal embezzlement. - The initial investigation focused solely on these formal elements, and the investigator ultimately referred the client to the prosecution on charges of occupational embezzlement. 2. Our Arguments and Role - We argued that the capital requirement for maintaining registration after licensing includes both liquid and non-liquid assets, whereas only liquid assets are considered at the time of initial registration. Therefore, the company’s possession of sufficient non-liquid assets meant that there was no violation of the Capital Markets Act, and this argument was accepted. - Furthermore, we explained the background of the transfers from the company's account to the client’s personal account to demonstrate that the client lacked any intent of unlawful appropriation. - At the time of registration, the Financial Supervisory Service had pointed out the need for the company to sell its subsidiaries and secure liquidity. In response, the client took out a personal loan and used that money, via acquaintances' names, to repurchase the company's subsidiaries. - Accordingly, we asserted that: ① the client had used funds obtained through personal loans for the benefit of the company, particularly to resolve subsidiary purchase costs and liquidity issues; ② although the funds were formally deposited into the company account as subsidiary purchase payments, in substance, the funds were loans provided by the client to the company; ③ the recurring monthly transfers from the company to the client merely constituted interest payments on said loan, and were not used for the client's personal gain. - Through these arguments, we successfully prompted a request for supplementary investigation. After multiple meetings with the police, we convinced them to reverse their previous decision to refer the case to the prosecution, resulting in a non-indictment decision. 3. Summary and Significance of the Decision - Despite the large sums transferred from the company's account to the CEO's personal account and the absence of supporting documentation, which could have made a case for embezzlement, our legal team was able to establish that there was no intent of unlawful appropriation through rigorous legal analysis of the Capital Markets Act and a detailed investigation of the case's complex background. - Notably, it is rare for investigative authorities to reverse a decision even after a request for supplementary investigation by the prosecution. However, through persistent dialogue with the police, we succeeded in overturning the original decision, swiftly protecting the client's rights. - This case reaffirmed our strong capabilities in responding meticulously to complex anti-corruption and financial crime matters from the investigative stage.

1. Case Overview In February 2025, the client visited an adult entertainment bar with a friend. While drinking with employees of the establishment, the client had consensual sexual intercourse with one of the employees. After the intercourse, the employee requested the client to pay a certain amount of money. The client replied that he would make the payment later and then returned home. However, the employee suddenly accused the client of rape and reported him to the police. 2. Key Issues Immediately after receiving the report, the police summoned the client as a suspect. The client requested to reschedule the investigation on the grounds of retaining legal counsel. However, the police considered the client's request as an unjustified refusal to cooperate with the investigation. As a result, the police carried out an emergency arrest and applied for a detention warrant, making it likely that the client would be indicted and held in pre-trial detention. The client sought the assistance of Barun Law, known for its excellent capabilities in police investigation response, with the following requests: (1) to ensure the client could undergo the investigation without being detained, and (2) to obtain a non-indictment decision. 3. Our Arguments and Role Upon being retained, we examined the facts and analyzed the overall structure of the case. It concluded that there were neither grounds for emergency arrest nor for pre-trial detention, and that the client had engaged in consensual sexual intercourse, not rape. Accordingly, we assisted the client in truthfully testifying during the police investigation regarding the circumstances leading up to and following the sexual intercourse. At the same time, we actively argued to the prosecution that (i) the criminal charges had not been substantiated and (ii) there was no reason to detain the client. As a result, the prosecution concluded that grounds for detention had not been demonstrated and rejected the police's request for a detention warrant, allowing the client to remain under investigation without being detained. Furthermore, we argued to the police that considering the overall circumstances before and after the sexual intercourse: there was no evidence that the client committed rape through violence or threats; there was no evidence that the injuries on the employee's body were caused by the client's violence; and it was difficult to conclude that the employee was in a state of resistance incapacity at the time of the incident. The police accepted our arguments and, contrary to the initial expectation that the case would be referred to the prosecution with a recommendation for indictment, issued a non-referral decision on the grounds of no charges. The prosecution also accepted this decision and returned the case to the police without taking further action, allowing the client to escape indictment and be free from allegations. 4. Result and Significance By contacting Barun Law early in the case and consulting on a response strategy, the client was able to provide a full explanation of the circumstances surrounding the incident and thereby avoid detention. Ultimately, the client not only avoided indictment but also received a non-referral decision, meaning the case was not even submitted to the prosecution.

1. Case Overview a. Party Represented by Barun Law: A Chamber of Commerce (as a defendant) b. Background: At an extraordinary general assembly of A Chamber of Commerce, a vote was held to elect a new president. When a large number of invalid votes occurred in the first round of voting, all attending members unanimously agreed to nullify the result and conduct a re-vote. As a result of the re-vote, Candidate B was elected president. c. Litigation: The plaintiff, a losing candidate in the vote, filed a main lawsuit seeking confirmation of the nullity of the presidential election resolution, asserting that the re-vote procedure violated the regulations on the appointment of officers and the Chamber's articles of association. The plaintiff also filed a preliminary injunction seeking suspension of the president's duties, citing a statement made by a particular member expressing support for Candidate B right before the election, claiming procedural illegality in the resolution. 2. Judgment The court found that the general assembly resolution was not procedurally unlawful, and even if there had been minor procedural violations, such defects were unlikely to have affected the outcome of the election. Accordingly, the court overturned the earlier decision to grant the preliminary injunction suspending the president's duties and dismissed the plaintiff's claims. 3. Grounds for the Judgment The court ruled that, considering the circumstances and procedure of the re-vote in the presidential election, the re-vote was lawfully conducted based on the unanimous consent of attending members in accordance with the articles of association. The court also held that the particular member's statement could not be regarded as a clear expression of support for a specific candidate. Even if minor procedural violations had occurred, they were not serious enough to undermine the freedom and fairness of the election. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claims were dismissed. 4. Our Arguments and Role We systematically demonstrated the procedural legitimacy of the resolution based on the meeting rules and articles of association, analyzed the results of the first and second votes, the proportion of invalid ballots, and the context of the specific member's remarks to argue that there were no material procedural violations in the resolution, and asserted that even if minor violations existed, they did not substantially affect the election outcome. By doing so, we successfully overturned the unfavorable preliminary injunction and secured the validity of the resolution in the main proceedings. 5. Significance of the Judgment Despite the unfavorable preliminary decision suspending the president's duties, this case exemplifies how the validity of a resolution can be upheld in the main lawsuit through a thorough interpretation of the articles of association and internal regulations, demonstration of procedural legitimacy, and concrete evidence of the actual course of the election. This ruling provides a meaningful precedent for responding to future disputes regarding internal elections and decision-making procedures within organizations.

The column, "Should I report any public official who gives lectures outside national or local government offices if such lectures exceed three times per month?" written by Attorney Kim Chu has been published in The Segye Ilbo.

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 case" 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.