Attorney Jung Hae-Young was appointed as a non-standing member of the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. His term will be from May 2025 to May 2027.

On July 18, 2025, Attorney Jo Dong-Hyun hosted the 5th board meeting of the Insolvency Lawyers' Society of the Korean Bar Association. The meeting was attended by the society's advisor Attorney Heo Joong-Hyuk (Vice President of the Korean Bar Association) and Vice Chairman Park Si-Hyun. Attorney Jo (who was elected as chairman of the Insolvency Lawyers' Society in April 2023) resolved at this 5th board meeting to commission a research project on the current operation and future outlook of the Chief Restructuring Officer (CRO) system, under which the courts appoint the CROs upon commencement of corporate rehabilitation proceedings. The research project will explore (1) measures for attorneys to participate in corporate rehabilitation proceedings as CROs, and (2) a plan for the Korean Bar Association to act as the managing body and recommend insolvency-specialized attorneys to the rehabilitation courts for appointment as CROs. On the same day, Attorney Jo visited the Seoul Rehabilitation Court at 3:30 p.m. and had a meeting with Jung Jun-Young, who formerly served as a presiding judge of the Bankruptcy Division of the Seoul Central District Court and newly elected as President of the Seoul Rehabilitation Court, along with executive members of the Insolvency Lawyers' Association.

Attorney Kang Tae-Hun gave a lecture on suspect interrogation techniques as part of the 2025 Expert Course on Unfair Investigation Practices held at the National Tax Officials Training Institute.

Attorney Cho Woong-Kyu gave a lecture on "Practical Issues in Inheritance and Business Succession for In-House Counsels" at the 1st Corporate Legal Training Program of the Seoul Bar Association on August 7, 2025.

Attorney Cho Woong-Kyu gave a lecture on the contract law and the inheritance law for Kyobo Life's Comprehensive Financial Planner Program on August 12, 2025.

On July 1, 2025, Attorneys Choi Jin-Hyuk and Lee Hye-Jun participated in the "Second On-Site Legal Counseling Program," hosted by the Ministry of SMEs and Startups and the Korea Institute of Startup & Entrepreneurship Development, and provided advice on a wide-range of legal issues, including doing business and investing in Singapore, personal data protection, and patent infringement. Attorneys Choi and Lee plan to continue collaborating with the Ministry of SMEs and Startups to offer legal support to companies pursuing to expand business overseas.

1. Case Overview a. Party Represented by Barun Law: Plaintiff (Appellant) b. Background: The plaintiff, as a landowner operating XX Hospital within the redevelopment promotion district in question, submitted an application to the competent district office requesting that the hospital and its site be designated as a preservation area or be excluded from the redevelopment promotion plan. The district office responded by rejecting the plaintiff's application. c. Litigation Details: The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the district office seeking cancellation of the refusal to amend the redevelopment promotion plan. In response, the district office argued: "Under the Urban Redevelopment Act, redevelopment promotion plans are formulated by the mayor, county head, or district head and require approval from the special mayor, metropolitan mayor, or governor. Therefore, landowners such as the plaintiff do not have a statutory or equitable right to request changes to the redevelopment promotion plan, and consequently, this lawsuit is procedurally improper and should be dismissed." In this lawsuit, the relevant redevelopment association for the housing reconstruction project participated as a supporting party on behalf of the district office. 2. Judgment and Reasoning - First Instance: The court held that the plaintiff has a statutory or equitable right to request the district office to amend the redevelopment promotion plan to designate the hospital and its site as a preservation area or to exclude it from the redevelopment district pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Urban Redevelopment Act and Article 14(1)(6) of the Urban Planning Act. - Second Instance: The appellate court held that the redevelopment promotion plan for the district is a "redevelopment promotion plan" under Article 2(3) of the Urban Redevelopment Act, and changing the hospital and site to a preservation area or excluding them from the redevelopment district is not related to the implementation of the redevelopment project. Therefore, only the Urban Redevelopment Act applies in this context, and the Urban Planning Act does not apply. Consequently, the plaintiff was not deemed to have a statutory or equitable right to request amendments to the redevelopment promotion plan, reaching a conclusion opposite to that of the first instance. - Supreme Court: Considering the content and structure of the relevant provisions of the Urban Redevelopment Act and the Urban Planning Act, as well as the constitutional protection of private property rights, the Supreme Court held that landowners within a redevelopment promotion district who have an interest in the plan may propose amendments to the plan to the plan’s initiator or formulator pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Urban Redevelopment Act and Article 14(1)(6) of the Urban Planning Act. Accordingly, the Supreme Court recognized that landowners have a statutory or equitable right to request changes to the redevelopment promotion plan, and any refusal to accept such a request constitutes an administrative disposition subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court therefore overturned the appellate court’s decision. 3. Our Arguments and Role After the Supreme Court remand ruling, we, acting as the plaintiff's counsel, negotiated a settlement with the redevelopment association, which had participated as a supporting party for the defendant, thereby achieving the intended outcome in the remand proceedings. 4. Significance of the Judgment In a situation where the first and second instance courts had reached opposing conclusions, the Supreme Court established a clear standard regarding whether the district office's refusal to amend the redevelopment promotion plan constitutes an administrative disposition, providing a highly meaningful precedent for future cases of a similar nature.

1. Case Overview a. Party Represented by Barun Law: A general construction company that received a notification of the 2024 fatality rate from the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (KOSHA) b. Background The client is a mid-sized general construction company preparing to bid in the second half of 2025 for public housing construction projects commissioned by the Public Procurement Service (for LH). In 2024, a worker employed by a subcontractor at the client's construction site died in an accident. KOSHA included the worker's death in the "number of construction site fatalities" for the client, resulting in a 2024 fatality rate for construction companies that was 3.42 times the average for general construction companies, and notified the client accordingly. c. Litigation Details After taking the case, we filed a main lawsuit seeking cancellation of the 2024 fatality rate notification and, in conjunction, requested a suspension of enforcement until the 30th day following the judgment in the main proceedings. 2. Decision Injunction suspending enforcement granted (Seoul Administrative Court Decision No. 2025Ah12496, dated August 6, 2025) 3. Basis for the Decision The Seoul Administrative Court found that the notification of the 2024 fatality rate by KOSHA could cause the client irreparable harm and that there was an urgent need to prevent such harm. The Court also found no evidence that suspending enforcement would seriously affect the public interest, and therefore granted the injunction. 4. Our Arguments and Role Our Administrative and Tax Group (attorneys Park Sung-huo and Son Ju-young) conducted a meticulous analysis of the facts and argued that the harm to the client would be severe and irreparable. Through in-depth research on the relevant provisions of the Industrial Safety and Health Act and the constitutional principle of personal responsibility, we argued that the death of the subcontractor's worker should not be included in the client's construction site fatality count and, consequently, should not affect the calculation of the fatality rate. Notably, based on their prior success last year in obtaining the first injunction against a fatality rate notification for a specialized construction company, our Administrative and Tax Group actively participated in the hearing, persistently persuading the court. They thus achieved, for the first time in Korea, the suspension of enforcement of a fatality rate notification for a general construction company. 5. Significance of the Decision Given the recent strengthening of regulations for construction companies under the Serious Accident Punishment Act and other industrial safety laws, this case is highly significant in that it not only explicitly recognized the administrative disposition of KOSHA's fatality rate notification, which plays a crucial role in pre-qualification and capability assessments for construction bids, but also marked the first time a domestic law firm successfully obtained an injunction suspending enforcement of such a notification.

1. Case Overview This case involved a medical corporation, a special non-profit legal entity whose principal operating funds derive from medical care benefit claims paid by the National Health Insurance Service, that filed for rehabilitation proceedings. The corporation had been experiencing management difficulties due to accumulated losses following a sharp decline in patients after COVID-19. Because its major receivables consisted of medical care benefit claims, failure to obtain a swift commencement order for rehabilitation would have caused severe disruption to the hospital's overall operations, placing it in a crisis situation. 2. Our Response and the Court's Measures Upon filing the rehabilitation petition, we immediately organized and submitted key arguments along with supporting evidence, including: - Medical care benefit claims had already been pledged to financial institutions as collateral by assignment. - In practice, insurance payments are often suspended even before formal commencement of rehabilitation proceedings. - Delays in payment would cause substantial harm to patient treatment and the hospital's overall operations. - Considering the unique nature and public interest role of medical corporations, delays in rehabilitation proceedings would directly lead to gaps in medical services. On the basis of these arguments, the court issued a comprehensive stay order and a preservation order on the day after the filing, and within only three days conducted both the examination of the representative and the order for commencement of rehabilitation, thereby completing an exceptionally expedited commencement procedure. 3. Significance of the Case Whereas rehabilitation commencement orders usually take several weeks, this case achieved commencement within only three days. This outcome was decisively influenced by our strategic arguments and advance preparation, which fully reflected the operational characteristics and public interest of medical corporations, the structure and practical practices regarding assignment of medical care benefit claims as collateral, and the realities of insurance benefit payments. In particular, we accurately highlighted the practical risk that insurance payments could be suspended even before commencement, thereby making the court aware of the severe consequences of procedural delay and inducing the court to commence rehabilitation proceedings swiftly. 4. Implications In rehabilitation cases involving non-profit and special-purpose corporations, there are structural particularities and institutional limitations distinct from those of ordinary corporations. Success in rehabilitation requires tailored strategies that fully account for these factors. Based on its extensive experience in rehabilitation cases for medical institutions and special-purpose entities, we provide optimal solutions that ensure both the effectiveness and speed of rehabilitation proceedings.

1. Case Overview and Issues The Joint Investigation Division on National Fiscal Crimes of the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office launched an investigation into allegations of corruption in Korea’s largest floating solar power plant project, based on a referral from the Board of Audit and Inspection. The prosecution alleged that our client, which had performed consulting services in connection with civil complaint response, issued false tax invoices totaling KRW 8.6 billion in the course of receiving reimbursement for expenses it had already incurred, and that the client colluded with the representative of the project developer to commit occupational embezzlement. Based on these suspicions, the prosecution executed a large-scale search and seizure and commenced a full-scale investigation. Since issuing false tax invoices in excess of KRW 3 billion constitutes a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Issuance of False Tax Invoices, etc.), which carries not only imprisonment but also a mandatory fine of not less than two times and not more than five times the amount of value-added tax, the client was facing a high risk of pretrial detention. 2. Our Arguments and Role We conducted a thorough analysis of the facts and, applying the relevant legal principles under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, argued that the client had incurred the expenses using its own funds in the course of providing consulting services, and that the tax invoices, although not consistent with the actual transactions, were issued at the counterparty's request, such that the statutory element of "profit-making purpose" could not be deemed satisfied. We also engaged in close communication with the prosecution's investigation team and actively cooperated with the investigation, thereby ensuring that no additional charge of occupational embezzlement was brought against the client and that the client was not wrongfully detained. 3. Investigation Outcome and Significance While the prosecution indicted the main perpetrators of the solar power plant corruption scandal in detention, it did not initiate any separate case against the client, and in August 2025, rendered a disposition of non-indictment with respect to the charge of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Issuance of False Tax Invoices, etc.) previously applied to the client. Thus, although the client had been booked as a suspect, subjected to a large-scale search and seizure, and faced the imminent risk of detention, by choosing us, the client was able to avoid any criminal punishment. Subsequently, the client entrusted us with a separate claim for KRW 10 billion in consulting fees, which is currently proceeding smoothly.

1.Case Overview a. Client represented by Barun Law: Defendant (Bank A) b. Background: The plaintiff (a supervisor) was reported for workplace sexual harassment after an incident during a second round of a company dinner, where he allegedly interlocked fingers with a subordinate while giving a high-five, and kissed the back of her hand several times. Bank A imposed a disciplinary dismissal against the plaintiff. c.Lawsuit: The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the dismissal, alleging both procedural and substantive defects in the disciplinary action. 2.Judgment Cheongju District Court's Decision No. 2024Gahap52908, dated July 11, 2025. 3. Basis of Judgment The court found that the defendant had notified the plaintiff of the specific allegations of misconduct and had afforded him sufficient opportunity to contest them, thus ensuring procedural fairness. The court further held that there were no special circumstances rendering the dismissal disproportionately harsh, and therefore the dismissal was lawful and valid. 4.Our Role We conducted a thorough legal analysis of disciplinary measures for workplace sexual harassment and meticulously examined the procedural record of the disciplinary committee, successfully establishing: (i)The plaintiff initially claimed during the first investigation that he "could not remember due to intoxication," but later, after the dismissal was imposed, abruptly changed his statement during the appeal process to deny the harassment, undermining his credibility. (ii) The plaintiff challenged the credibility of the written statements submitted by the defendant, but these were merely transcripts of audio recordings secured at the outset of the incident, not fabricated after the fact. (iii) The plaintiff argued that he had been denied the right to defend himself because the initial investigation did not specify the acts subject to discipline; however, during the disciplinary process he was duly notified of the allegations and afforded ample opportunity to explain. (iv) The plaintiff contended that the rehearing before the personnel committee was perfunctory since no questions were directed to him. However, as the plaintiff attended with his attorney and the absence of direct questioning does not itself establish a lack of substantive review, this argument was unpersuasive. 5. Significance of the Judgment This case is significant in that the court held that even where there are no eyewitnesses to a sexual harassment incident, testimony from colleagues who heard about the incident from the victim shortly thereafter, if detailed and credible, can serve to prove the misconduct.

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.

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.