On December 5, 2024, Attorney Kim Tae-Hyung gave a lecture titled, "The Importance of Intellectual Property Rights in Technology Commercialization" at the 2024 Collaborative and Convergent Science and Technology Commercialization Exchange Conference organized by the Kore Federation of Small and Medium Industry Technology Associations.In his lecture, Attorney Kim addressed intellectual property issues that arise during the technology commercialization process to the attendees.

On December 13, 2024, Attorney Baek Kwang-Hyeon presented on the topic, "The Necessity of CP and Successful CP Operation and Response under the Amended Fair Trade Act" at the December 2024 seminar of the Economic Law Case Study Association, held in the large conference room of the Korea Fair Trade Mediation Agency, located on the 8th floor of the Korean Chamber of Commerce.In his presentation, Attorney Baek emphasized the increased necessity of CP (Compliance Programs) and explained strategies and responses for successful CP operation.

Dalian Overseas Friendship Association, which is committed to fostering global friendship for Dalian, a city located in Liaoning Province, China, paid an amicable visit to Barun Law on December 13, 2024. On this day, during the meeting with Attorneys Park Jae-Peel, Kim Hyun-Woong, Lee Dong-Hoon (Managing Partner) and Foreign Attorney Jin Zhong-Fu, the Association stated that "Barun Law has extensive experience providing legal services related to the Dalian Beiliang Port oil facility construction project and M&A, among other China-related legal matters," and expressed their intention to continue close cooperation with Barun Law in the future. Barun Law has formed a team specializing in China-related legal advice, composed of outstanding lawyers who possess expertise in Chinese legal matters, practical experience, and fluent Chinese language skills.

Barun Law participated in the "Startup Overseas Legal FAQ Launching MOU" ceremony held at Front One located in Mapo-gu, Seoul on November 15, 2024. Lee Dong-Hoon, Managing Partner of Barun Law, signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Ministry of SMEs and Startups to address legal and regulatory challenges faced by startups seeking to expand internationally. Following the MOU signing ceremony, Attorneys Choi Jin-Hyuk and Lee Hye-Jun from Barun's Southeast Asia Services Team participated in the Consultation Session on Resolving Legal and Regulatory Challenges for Startups Expanding Overseas. During this session, Attorneys Choi and Lee provided on-on-one meetings and consultations to several startups regarding their plans for entering the Singapore market.

Attorney Cho Jae-Bin has been reappointed as member of the Regulatory Review Committee of the Office for Government Policy Coordination.Attorney Cho has been serving as the member of this committee since November 2022. Following his reappointment, his term has been extended until November 2026.

Attorney Cho Jae-Bin has been reappointed as a member of Korea Housing Finance Corporation's Ombudsman and Regulatory Review Committee. His term will be from November 2024 to November 2026.

1. Overview of the Case Company A advertised a mixed-use resort under the sales structure of income-generating real estate. However, the issue arose as to whether certain advertisements constituted misleading advertising due to the omission of specifying the exclusion of value-added tax (VAT) in the rental income statements. 2. Key Points of the Korean Fair Trade Commission's Decision The KFTC accepted most of the arguments presented by Company A and us and decided to waive all corrective orders and penalties for the following reasons: 1. Advertisements for income-generating real estate target a specific consumer group. As such, the nature of corrective orders and penalties he advertisements should be deemed to lean more towards addressing damages for contracting parties rather than remedying consumer misunderstandings for the general public. 2. The company corrected the issue during the subsequent stages of transactions, such as contract negotiations, enabling consumers to verify the consistency of the facts. 3. Our Role and Implications If a case of unfair labeling or advertising is recognized, it can lead to significant tangible and intangible losses for the business. These include damage to brand value due to media coverage of the findings and potential lawsuits for compensation based on the decision, causing further disputes. Initial responses are therefore critical. However, as the primary requirements for unfair advertising—unfairness, consumer misrepresentation, and obstruction of fair trade—are defined as open-ended concepts, without a precise understanding of market characteristics, transaction methods, and the content and context of the advertisement, it is challenging to refute these charges. We effectively highlighted the unique characteristics of real estate sales projects, including their complex transaction structures, various stakeholders, contracting procedures and methods, and the conditions of the real estate in question. By demonstrating the limited necessity and benefits of regulatory intervention, we successfully persuaded the KFTC to exempt Company A from corrective orders and penalties.

1. Case Overview A. Party Represented by Barun Law The defendant, the head of a tax office. B. Background of the Case The plaintiff, a company engaged in construction and real estate sales, entered into management-type land trust contracts with trust companies. Under these agreements, the trust companies assumed ownership of business sites and the role of contractor for construction projects, becoming the implementers of housing projects like apartment developments. Meanwhile, the plaintiff, as the settlor, financed the projects. The trust companies carried out the construction projects and sold apartments in the first half of 2015 and the second half of 2016. The plaintiff, assuming it was liable for VAT, issued sales tax invoices based on the sale proceeds and deducted input tax related to construction services. Accordingly, it declared and paid VAT for the respective periods: KRW 1.604 billion for the first half of 2015 and KRW 2.722 billion for the second half of 2016. Following a Supreme Court en banc decision on May 18, 2017 (Decision No. 2012Du22485, hereafter "the En Banc Decision"), which held that the trustee, not the settlor, is liable for VAT on trust property, the plaintiff filed for tax refunds. It sought KRW 2.857 billion for the first half of 2015 and KRW 8.311 billion for the second half of 2016, excluding input tax deductions. However, the tax office refunded only the adjusted amounts of KRW 999 million and KRW 3.266 billion, respectively, while disallowing input tax deductions. C. Litigation: The plaintiff argued that before the En Banc Decision, VAT law presumed that the settlor was liable for VAT. Accordingly, the plaintiff received and paid invoices for input tax on construction services. It claimed that there was no legal basis under Article 39 of the VAT Act to disallow these deductions. Thus, it argued that when refunding already-paid VAT post-En Banc Decision, input tax deductions should remain valid, and only sales tax should be refunded. The plaintiff sought to overturn the tax office's partial denial of its correction claim. 2. Judgments For the First Half of 2015: Seoul High Court Decision 2023Nu57373, dated November 13, 2024. For the Second Half of 2016: Supreme Court Decision 2024Du44648, dated October 8, 2024. 3. Basis of the Judgment The main reasoning behind the full-bench judgment in this case is as follows: "When a trustee manages or disposes of trust property received from the trustor and supplies goods, the trustee becomes the party to the contract as the subject to whom the rights and obligations related to the trust property are attributed and handles the trust affairs. Therefore, the trustee, who transfers the authority to use and consume the goods to the counterparty of the transaction through the act of supplying goods, must be considered the liable party for the payment of value-added tax (VAT)." Furthermore, the VAT Act taxes the transaction itself, which involves the "supply of goods or services" as a basis for value creation, rather than directly taxing the income or value added generated from the transaction. Considering this, regardless of who is ultimately entitled to the income or value added from the transaction, the outward supplier in the transaction is the trustee, who qualifies as the party eligible for the deduction of input tax. It was thus determined that the plaintiff (the trustor company) is not eligible for the deduction of input tax. 4. Our Argument and Role This full-bench judgment considers the trustee as the liable party for VAT payment concerning trust property, not as argued by the plaintiff, where only the output tax liability is imposed on the trustee while the input tax deduction eligibility remains with the trustor. In addition, the European Court of Justice case cited by the plaintiff concerns the "transfer of business" of German limited liability companies and limited partnerships, making it unsuitable for interpreting VAT liability related to "trust" property in this case. After this full-bench judgment, the amended VAT law explicitly recognized that trustees, not trustors, are eligible for input tax deductions. The amendment even created exceptions to the principle that input tax deductions cannot be claimed for tax invoices with false information, allowing trustees to claim input tax deductions for invoices in the name of the trustor (the party who actually paid the input tax in the past). We successfully presented and proved these points, leading to the the tax office's victory. 5. Significance of the Judgment Following this full-bench judgment, there have been numerous amendment requests by trustors aiming to avoid input tax denial while only seeking refunds for output tax. Moreover, internal guidelines of the National Tax Service inconsistently regarded the name on tax invoices related to trust property supply as that of the trustor, while also stating that input tax deductions cannot be claimed for such invoices by trustees. This judgment clarifies that even if the trustor had previously paid the input tax, the trustee, as the VAT payer, is the entity eligible for input tax deductions. It establishes consistency in processing amendment requests. For taxpayers, this judgment also provides clear guidance that resolving input tax already paid by the trustor lies within the internal relationship between the trustor and trustee, not through amendment requests to the tax authority.

1. Case Overview The defendant entered into a real estate development project with the plaintiff on property owned by the defendant and executed a real estate sales agreement, transferring ownership of the property to the plaintiff. In addition to the agreement, the parties signed a "Performance Memorandum," stating that ownership of a portion of the property would remain with the defendant. Subsequently, the defendant filed for a preliminary injunction to prohibit the disposition of the property based on the Performance Memorandum. The court granted the injunction, reasoning that the defendant had a claim for ownership transfer registration due to a genuine ownership restoration arising from a trust arrangement. However, upon the plaintiff's objection, the court revoked the preliminary injunction. In a related lawsuit filed by the defendant seeking ownership transfer registration, the court dismissed the claim, citing insufficient evidence to recognize the existence of a trust agreement. These decisions were affirmed through appellate review. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a damages lawsuit against the defendant, alleging harm from the unjust preliminary injunction. 2. Court's Decision  (Uijeongbu District Court, Goyang Branch Decision 2024Gadan54993, dated November 7, 2024) The court held that if a creditor in a preservation proceeding such as an injunction loses the main lawsuit, it is presumed that the creditor acted with intent or negligence, resulting in damages to the debtor. However, this presumption can be overturned if the creditor had reasonable grounds to believe in the existence of the claimed right at the time of filing for the injunction. The court further ruled that if the existence of the right in question depended not on factual discrepancies but on differences in legal interpretation or evaluation, the creditor could not be deemed negligent in believing the right existed. Specifically, the court found that the wording in the Performance Memorandum could serve as evidence supporting the existence of a trust agreement; the main lawsuit's dismissal was based on insufficient evidence rather than definitive proof against the existence of the trust agreement; the burden of proof rested on the defendant, and the dismissal of the claim did not conclusively affirm the nonexistence of the trust agreement; and the defendant had reasonable grounds to argue that the ownership was not fully transferred to the plaintiff, given the circumstances. Thus, the court concluded that the defendant’s presumption of intent or negligence was rebutted, as the issue stemmed from legal interpretation rather than factual inaccuracies. 3. Our Arguments and Role In claims for damages arising from wrongful lawsuits, courts protect the right to access legal remedies, recognizing such claims only when the lawsuit is deemed grossly unreasonable. However, for wrongful preservation measures like preliminary injunctions, courts generally presume the creditor's intent or negligence unless the defendant provides special circumstances to rebut this presumption. This placed the defendant at a disadvantage in this case. However, we argued, citing Supreme Court precedents that found no negligence on the part of the execution creditor when the creditor's loss in the main lawsuit resulted not from factual discrepancies but from differences in legal interpretation or evaluation. We also discovered and presented to the court lower court rulings that concluded the execution creditor's intent or negligence could not be established in cases where the creditor lost the main lawsuit due to conflicting interpretations of the content and validity of the contract. In this case, we emphasized that there was no dispute over the fact that the Performance Memorandum between the plaintiff and the defendant had been genuinely prepared. However, the defendant lost the main lawsuit solely due to differences in legal interpretation or evaluation regarding the memorandum's legal validity. Furthermore, we actively argued that, based on the wording of the memorandum and the plaintiff's actions and statements, the defendant, as a layperson, had no choice but to mistakenly believe that the memorandum constituted a nominal trust agreement. As a result, we successfully persuaded the court to overturn the presumption of intent or negligence on the part of the defendant.

1. Case Overview A. Party Represented by Barun Law: "Mr. A" the owner of an aging building approved for use in 1953. B. Background of the Case: In 2017, Mr. A acquired ownership of the building in question. While removing interior finishing materials for waterproofing work, Mr. A discovered the building in a dire state, with collapsed walls and decayed, twisted pillars. Concerned about the building's safety, Mr. A urgently initiated major renovation work. However, the architect in charge, aware that the building's actual area exceeded the registered area, assumed there would be no issues due to customary practices. Without notifying Mr. A, the architect prepared renovation drawings based on the registered area and submitted them to the relevant administrative office. A neighboring resident, who had a strained relationship with Mr. A, filed a complaint. Upon inspection of the renovated building, the authorities discovered that the building’s actual area exceeded the registered area. Consequently, the administrative office canceled Mr. A's building permit and approval for use, issued a correction order, and imposed a compliance enforcement fine, citing discrepancies between the submitted architectural plans and the actual structure. C. Legal Proceedings: During the lawsuit, the administrative office argued that since the building's actual area exceeded the registered land area, it violated the Building Act. They claimed that partial demolition would be necessary to rectify the issue. 2. Judgment: Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2023Guhap81435), dated November 8, 2024 3. Grounds for the Judgment The court ruled to cancel all administrative actions against Mr. A, including the cancellation of the building permit and approval for use, the correction order, and the imposition of the compliance enforcement fine, based on the following reasoning: a. The correction order did not specify how the alleged violations should be addressed, making it unlawful. b. The claim that the building’s actual area exceeded the registered land area was not part of the original reasoning for the administrative actions and did not share the same fundamental facts. Thus, it could not be added as a new basis for the actions during the lawsuit. c. Considering the timing of the building's construction and its history, it was likely that the registered area did not accurately reflect the current state of the building. Given the significant disadvantage Mr. A would suffer, canceling the building permit solely because the submitted plans adhered to the registered area violated the principle of proportionality. 4. Our Arguments and Role We argued that Mr. A, who lacked architectural expertise, had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the registered area. Therefore, he could not have anticipated or prevented the architect's violations. We also highlighted a recent Supreme Court decision (No. 2023Du62465, dated July 11, 2024,) to emphasize that ordering the demolition of facilities not previously questioned by the authorities was disproportionate and violated the principle of proportionality. 5. Significance of the Judgment Once a complaint is filed, administrative offices often take action even when such measures lack substantive justification. In this case, Mr. A, acting to secure the safety of an aging building, faced unforeseen disadvantages, including the cancellation of the building permit and the designation of the structure as noncompliant. This ruling underscores that administrative actions taken solely based on detected violations, without considering specific circumstances or fairness, are likely to be deemed unlawful.

We consulted on a transaction in which a special purpose entity acquired about 50 solar power plants (total capacity of 36.5MW) and sold the electricity generated from the solar power plants to the private sector through direct power trading. Most of the existing photovoltaic power generation projects were RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard) projects, in which solar power plants were built with funds raised through loans from financial institutions, supply certificates were sold to public power generation companies, and then electricity was sold to the Korea Power Exchange. However, recently, a direct electricity trading method was introduced, in which renewable energy power is sold to private companies through private renewable energy suppliers instead of through the Korea Power Exchange, and the buyers fulfill the RE100. We provided advice on the PF agreement as well as the overall agreements related to this project, including the power trading agreement between SK Eternix and the special purpose entity, the direct power trading agreement between the SK Eternix and the electricity user, and the asset transfer agreement for the acquisition of assets such as the solar power plant of the special purpose entity. In a situation where electricity consumers are actively pursuing the purchase of renewable energy power mainly by large corporations to implement the RE100 standards, we successfully carried out the overall business advisory work from the conception to the conclusion of the business structure that reflects the uniqueness of direct renewable energy power transactions.

Barun Law LLC (Attorneys Choi Jae-woong, Jo Eun-ju, Lee Hye-Jun and Kim June-Young) recently provided legal advisory services to Woori Bank regarding a Funded Participation Agreement related to syndicated loan claims held against an insolvent debtor located in Saudi Arabia. The Funded Participation Agreement is a contractual arrangement where a lender sells its creditor rights under a loan agreement to a participant at a discounted price. Through such an agreement, the lender secures liquidity before the debtor repays the loan, while the participant assumes a proportionate share of the future repayments, distributions, or dividends. This enables the lender to mitigate risks associated with the debtor's repayment by transferring such risks to the participant. In this case, we assisted Woori Bank with the selection process of a preferred bidder for the Funded Participation Agreement on its overseas assets, valued at approximately USD 20,000,000 (KRW 28.6 billion). We also provided services such as drafting and finalizing the agreement, thereby supporting the bank in diversifying risks associated with non-performing loans held against insolvent debtors. Furthermore, we worked closely with a local law firm in Saudi Arabia to monitor the progress of the liquidation proceedings for the insolvent debtor, assess residual assets, and review proposals from overseas preferred bidders. These efforts, along with comprehensive legal guidance for concluding the transaction, led to the successful completion of the Funded Participation Agreement. As the prolonged economic downturn and global financial crises continue to escalate non-performing loans for financial institutions, proactive measures to manage and dispose of such assets are anticipated. Barun Law LLC provides efficient and comprehensive legal services for risk mitigation, including overseas distressed asset assessments, sales, and disposals. This case underscores the firm's commitment to delivering swift and effective solutions for the management of distressed assets.

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.