Attorney Song Kil-Dae has been appointed as a member of the Legislative Terminology Review Committee of the Ministry of Government Legislation in December, 2024.

Attorney Choi Young-Chan has been appointed as a Legal Advisor to the Ministry of Personnel Management for the term from February 2025 to January 2027. Attorney Choi will provide legal services, including consultation and representation in litigation and administrative appeal cases related to the Ministry of Personnel Management, interpretation and application of laws under the Ministry's jurisdiction, advisory services on the enactment and amendment of relevant legislation, and review and draft key documents, such as agreements and litigation-related documents.

Attorney Choi Young-Chan has been appointed as a Legal Advisor to the Ministry of the Interior and Safety for the term from February 2025 to February 2027. In this new position, Attorney Choi will provide advice and review and draft key documents, such as agreements and litigation-related documents. He will also provide various legal services, including litigation representation, administrative appeal consultation, and legal advisory services related to the Ministry of the Interior and Safety and its affiliated agencies.

Attorney Kim Yong-Woo was interviewed on "The Power of Writing in Expanding the World for Lawyers" by Lawwave, a legal media outlet founded by LBOX.

Attorney Ma Seong-Han has been appointed as a member of the Listing Disclosure Committee of KRX KONEX Market for a term from January 21, 2025 to January 20, 2027.

Attorney Kim Yong-Woo participated in the Winder Joint Academic Conference that was jointly organized on the 17th of last month by the Korea Subcontracting Law Association, Korea Fair Trade Mediation Agency, and Dankook University Law Research Institute. Attorney Kim took part as a panelist in the discussion on the topic, "A Study on the Revised Civil Code's Warranty Liability Provisions and the Warranty Liability Period under Construction Contracts."

1. Case Overview The plaintiff suffered a severe injury from a fall while installing temporary structures at a construction site in October 2022. The plaintiff applied for workers' compensation benefits from the Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service (the defendant), claiming that the accident constituted an occupational injury. However, the defendant denied the request, stating: "The plaintiff, as a 'site supervisor' (십장, 'sip-jang') at the construction site, led multiple workers while operating independently under their own financial and managerial discretion, and thus cannot be considered a worker eligible for industrial accident compensation." The plaintiff challenged this decision by filing a lawsuit, but the first-instance court ruled in favor of the defendant. At the appellate stage, we represented the plaintiff. 2. Key Issues and Our Role At construction sites, specialized workers often form teams to undertake specific tasks. The most experienced worker typically acts as the 'site supervisor'. This is a long-standing practice in Korea, where the contracts signed by site supervisors—often referred to as 'work unit contracts' (품떼기계약, 'pum-ttegi-gye-yak')—are recognized in legal precedent as a mix of employment and subcontracting agreements. Due to the hybrid nature of these contracts, a legal question arose as to whether a site supervisor qualifies as a 'worker' under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and the Labor Standards Act. A site supervisor operates with both independent and subordinate aspects in relation to the employer. WeBarun gathered extensive evidence by investigating: (a) Who bore the cost of materials, (b) Who exercised direct supervision and control at the construction site, and (c) How the compensation for labor was determined. Through a comprehensive review of records, testimonies from subcontractors, and detailed legal arguments, we successfully demonstrated that the plaintiff provided labor under a dependent employment relationship in exchange for wages. 3. Court's Ruling and Significance The Seoul High Court fully accepted our arguments, overturned the first-instance ruling, and annulled the defendant's denial of benefits. Since the defendant did not appeal, the ruling became final. This decision clarified that even in construction sites where site supervisors work under 'work unit contracts,' they can still be recognized as workers based on the substantive nature of their employment relationship. The court deemed the plaintiff’s business registration status as a sole proprietor to be a mere formality. Ultimately, proving worker status depends on reconstructing the factual circumstances of the workplace in detail, and thanks to our efforts, the plaintiff, despite losing in the first trial, won on appeal and was able to receive workers' compensation benefits.

1. Case Overview A. Party Represented by Barun Law: The Korea Music Copyright Association (KOMCA). B. Background of the Case A background music service provider obtained digital audio files from music distributors—similar to commercially sold music—and stored them on its servers. These audio files were then transmitted via webcasting to retail stores, where they were played as background music. KOMCA argued that this playback constituted a public performance and thus infringed the copyright holders' performance rights, demanding compensation for unauthorized use. However, both the first-instance and appellate courts dismissed KOMCA's claims, ruling that the audio files in question qualified as 'commercial sound recordings' under Article 29(2) of the former Copyright Act, which limited performance rights in certain cases. 2. Key Legal Issue Article 29(2) of the former Copyright Act allowed public performance of 'commercial sound recordings' if no direct compensation was received from the audience. The key question was whether the audio files transmitted to stores fell under the definition of 'commercial sound recordings,' which the Supreme Court had interpreted as recordings 'produced for the purpose of commercial sale.' 3. Our Argument and Role We contended that the classification of 'commercial sound recordings' should be determined based on the intent at the time of their production. We challenged the appellate court's ruling (i.e., the audio files played in the defendant's stores were merely reproductions of sound recordings originally produced for commercial sale and therefore qualified as 'commercial sound recordings') by arguing: - The digital audio files stored on the service provider's servers should be treated as separate recordings, not mere reproductions of commercially sold music. - These files were not fixed for public sale but were exclusively created for background music services, distinguishing them from 'commercial sound recordings.' These arguments ultimately convinced the Supreme Court. 4. Supreme Court Ruling The Supreme Court ruled that: "When the background music service provider stored the audio files on its servers, they were fixed for the purpose of providing background music services rather than for commercial sale, and therefore, they do not qualify as 'commercial sound recordings'. Thus, playing these audio files in retail stores constituted an act of infringing performance rights." 5. Significance of the Ruling This ruling clarified that digital music files provided by background music service providers are not 'commercial sound recordings' under the former Copyright Act. Therefore, businesses that play such music in stores must pay performance royalties to copyright holders, reinforcing the protection of performance rights in the digital era.

1. Case Overview We represented the plaintiff, one of the co-heirs, in a case where the plaintiff had registered inheritance ownership based on statutory inheritance shares and paid the acquisition tax and other local taxes (including registration tax) on behalf of another co-heir (the defendant). The plaintiff then filed a claim for reimbursement, arguing that the defendant was obligated to pay the equivalent amount. 2. Judgment and Legal Basis The first-instance court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, stating that it was difficult to determine whether the real estate in question was part of the inherited estate and how the inheritance shares were distributed, as disputes over the inheritance distribution were still ongoing. The court ruled that the acquisition tax based on statutory inheritance shares could not be considered a definitive obligation of the defendant. However, we argued that even if the inheritance distribution had not yet been finalized, once an heir registers ownership based on statutory inheritance shares, the effect of acquiring that share does not retroactively disappear, even if the shares are later adjusted through an inheritance distribution agreement or court decision. Thus, the obligation to pay acquisition tax arises at the moment the statutory inheritance share is acquired. Accordingly, if one co-heir pays the acquisition tax on behalf of others due to joint tax liability, they should be able to claim reimbursement immediately, without waiting for the final inheritance distribution. The appellate court accepted this argument, overturned the first-instance ruling, and upheld the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement. 3. Our Role and Argument Given that Supreme Court precedents on this issue were unclear, we argued from the first-instance trial that: If one co-heir pays acquisition tax on behalf of others, they are entitled to reimbursement based on statutory inheritance shares. This reimbursement claim is independent of the inheritance distribution proceedings. Before the appellate court ruling, the Supreme Court issued a decision aligning with our argument, stating: "Even if inheritance distribution has retroactive effects, the fact that co-heirs shared the inherited property before distribution does not retroactively disappear. Therefore, as long as co-heirs jointly hold inherited property, they have a joint obligation to pay taxes on it. If one co-heir pays these taxes, they are entitled to claim reimbursement from the others based on statutory inheritance shares, barring exceptional circumstances." Leveraging this Supreme Court ruling, we reinforced our position, leading to a successful outcome in the appellate court.

1. Case Background and Key Issues The client sold his shares to an affiliate of a conglomerate in 2022. Later, financial authorities accused the client of engaging in fraudulent accounting practices amounting to KRW 60 billion over several years. The Financial Supervisory Service, the Audit Committee, and the Securities and Futures Commission referred the case to the prosecution for criminal investigation. The client argued that the fraudulent accounting was orchestrated by the former CEO, who had hired his acquaintances as financial officer, with intent to list the company on the stock market. Even after the client returned to management, the finance officer resigned immediately, and the client, lacking accounting expertise, was unaware that the fraudulent practices continued when they signed the financial statements. The external auditor of the company failed to detect the fraudulent accounting, and even during the due diligence for the share sale, the audit firm did not uncover the issue. This made it nearly impossible for a layperson like the client to detect the fraud. However, the former CEO falsely claimed that they had informed the client about the fraudulent accounting from the beginning, putting the client in a difficult position. The client sought our expertise in financial crime defense, requesting a robust defense to prevent unjust punishment. We handled the case from the Financial Supervisory Service stage through the prosecution's investigation. 2. Our Defense Strategy It is generally difficult to convince financial authorities that a CEO who signed fraudulent financial statements acted without intent. Nevertheless, we focused on proving the client's lack of knowledge through rigorous defense in interviews with financial regulators, the Audit Committee, and the Securities and Futures Commission. Despite our strong efforts in direct arguments before financial authorities, the defense was initially unsuccessful because the client was a representative director who profited from the stock sale and stated that he had been informed about the fraudulent accounting. After the case was referred for criminal prosecution, we meticulously gathered additional evidence, uncovering internal documents prepared by the former CEO to dominate management rights and proving the objective circumstances under which the client lost managerial control. We also ensured that key long-term employees provided testimony to the prosecution, ultimately leading the prosecution to acknowledge that the client was unaware of the fraudulent accounting. 3. Outcome and Significance By engaging us from the early stages of the financial investigation and fully disclosing the truth, the client successfully demonstrated his innocence. Despite the financial authorities' criminal referral, our defense strategy ultimately led to a "no charges" decision from the prosecution, recognizing that the client had no intent or responsibility for the fraudulent accounting.

1. Case Overview and Key Issues In 2019, the client secured a design service contract worth approximately KRW 20 billion. At the request of the ordering party, the client signed a so-called "UP contract," which included costs for resolving complaints in addition to the initially agreed price. The client also converted the corresponding amounts into cash and delivered them as requested by the ordering party. However, after an employee of the ordering party resigned, he reported the matter to a government agency. As a result, investigations were initiated, and the case was referred to the prosecution, revealing the key facts of the case. Although the executives of the client had not been officially reported to authorities, based on prior experiences, it was anticipated that they would face search and seizure operations and potential criminal charges due to their involvement in fund allocation and transfers. The client engaged us with exceptional expertise in anti-corruption cases, requesting the following: 1) prevention of the executives' arrest; and 2) prevention of search and seizure operations on the client and subcontractors involved in fund allocation. 2. Our Legal Strategy After taking on the case, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of the facts and overall situation, concluding that fully cooperating with the investigation and seeking leniency would be the most favorable approach. We presented arguments to the entire investigative team, emphasizing our willingness to cooperate fully in uncovering the truth in exchange for leniency. Typically, identifying the source of funds takes two to three months. However, by working closely with the client, we compiled and voluntarily submitted all financial records related to the fund allocation and transfer, including detailed written statements from the executives. As a result, the prosecution determined that there was no need for a search and seizure operation against the client or an arrest investigation of its executives. Instead, the prosecution immediately launched search and seizure operations targeting the ordering party and public officials who had received the funds, thereby advancing the investigation successfully. Following this success, the prosecution accepted our argument that companies, like the client, which had merely complied with the ordering party's requests to allocate funds later used for bribery, should not be prosecuted if they actively cooperated with the investigation. The prosecution further recognized that such an approach would aid in the broader anti-corruption investigations. 3. Outcome and Significance By consulting us early in the process, the client effectively navigated the investigation without undergoing search and seizure operations. Furthermore, its executives were not subjected to any criminal prosecution, allowing them to avoid all legal liabilities. Moreover, by meticulously organizing and submitting all relevant evidence and providing only accurate factual statements, the defense ensured that the indicted individuals fully accepted the evidence related to the client. Consequently, the executives were not required to appear in court as witnesses.

1. Case Overview A. Party Represented by Barun Law The plaintiff ("Mr. A") who had been issued an additional capital gains tax assessment of KRW 1,076,021,150 for the 2020 tax year by the defendant, the tax authority and filed a tax appeal, which was dismissed. B. Case Background Since 2012, Mr. A had operated a funeral home in partnership with other business associates. On April 4, 2018, Mr. A acquired the real estate in question under his name, registered it for real estate leasing, and on April 12, 2018, leased it to the partnership. Later, on November 20, 2019, Mr. A sold the real estate to Company B for KRW 8.6 billion. Subsequently, on December 11, 2019, Mr. A and his business partners sold the funeral home business rights to Company B for KRW 3.2 billion. Mr. A reported his 60% share of the business rights transfer price (KRW 1,865,370,000) as other income in his 2020 comprehensive income tax return. The defendant, XX Tax Office, argued that the business rights were transferred together with the real estate and thus should be classified as capital gains tax under Article 94(1)(4)(a) of the former Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the defendant recalculated Mr. A's real estate transfer value to KRW 10,465,470,000 (adding the business rights price to the reported KRW 8.6 billion) and issued an additional capital gains tax assessment of KRW 1,076,021,150 on September 7, 2023. Mr. A filed a tax appeal, but it was dismissed on February 28, 2024. C. Lawsuit Details Mr. A filed a lawsuit against the XX Tax Office, seeking cancellation of the additional capital gains tax assessment. 2. Court Decision Suwon District Court Decision No. 2024GuHap66748, dated January 16, 2024 3. Grounds for Judgment The court ruled that: Mr. A had independent ownership and control over the real estate as a separate economic entity from the partnership; the business rights could only be transferred with the unanimous consent of all partners (pursuant to Article 272 of Civil Act), meaning that the transferor of the business rights was the partnership, not Mr. A individually; since the transferors of the real estate and business rights were different entities, the transactions were separate; the real estate sale contract and business rights transfer contract were executed separately; and under taxation principles for joint businesses, it was unjust to classify Mr. A's income differently from his business partners, who were taxed under other income, not capital gains tax. Based on these findings, the court canceled the capital gains tax assessment imposed on Mr. A. 4. Our Arguments and Role We successfully presented detailed ownership records and transaction history of the real estate and business rights, cited taxation precedents and lower court rulings to argue that the business rights were not transferred "together with" the real estate under Article 94(1)(4)(a) of the former Income Tax Act, and proved the illegality of the tax authority's decision, leading to the cancellation of the KRW 1,076,021,150 tax assessment against Mr. A. 5. Significance of the Ruling This case clarifies that business rights and real estate transfers must be taxed separately when the ownership and transactions are distinct, restricts tax authorities from arbitrarily interpreting the law to impose capital gains tax where it does not apply, and enhances tax fairness for joint businesses, ensuring consistent taxation principles.

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.