Attorneys Choi Jin-Sook and Kim So-Youn have been appointed as legal advisors to Shinhan Asset Trust Co., Ltd., who will be providing legal services to the company.

Attorney Cho Jae-Bin participated as a panelist in the "AI, Digital Asset Innovation and South Korea's Digital Economy Growth Strategy" conference hosted by Kim Jae-Seop, a member of the National Assembly of Korea, and organized by The Korea Society of management Information Systems, Digital Asset Research Society and Korea AI Forum on March 20, 2025.

Attorney Choi Young-Chan has been appointed as a legal advisor to Korea National University of Transportation. Attorney Choi will be providing legal services, including legal advisory services as well as review and drafting of contracts and litigation-related documents. His term will be from April 2025 to February 2026.

Attorney Kim Do-Hyung has been appointed as a member of the Sanctions Deliberation Committee of the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS), from February 2025 to February 2027. Sanctions Deliberation Committee of the FSS serves as an advisory body to the Governor of the FSS. It reviews matters concerning sanctions against financial institutions and their officers or employees, and it is composed of approximately 15 external advisory members.

Attorney Baek Kwang-Hyeon has been selected as one of the 2024 Second Half Best Contributors by "The Pen," a specialized section of the Korea Economic Daily, at a ceremony held at the Korea Economic Daily Building located in Cheongpa-dong, Seoul, on February 24, 2025. Attorney Baek has been contributing columns to the Korea Economic Daily (hankyung.com) as a "Moneyist" under a series titled, "Baek Kwang-Hyeon's Fair Play." "The Pen" is a platform operated by the Korea Economic Daily featuring contributions from more than 80 experts, covering a wide range of topics—from stocks, real estate, taxes, and cryptocurrency to HR management, culture and traditional idioms—providing valuable insight to readers of Hankyung Media Group. Photo: Baek Kwang-Hyeon, 2024 Second Half Best Contributors for "The Pen." Moneyist | Korea Economic Daily TV

On March 6, 2025, Attorney Baek Kwang-Hyeon has been selected as a "Legal Professional of Positive Influence" by the Legal Community Leadership Campaign, jointly hosted and organized by Weekly People, a personality knowledge guide journal, and the New Intellectuals Social Forum, and sponsored by the Korea Economic Collaboration Association. Attorney Baek was recognized for his 19 years of dedication as a specialist in fair trade law, afield in which he has been active since 2007. He was honored as a positive influence for his contributions to social development and the promotion of a culture of fairness, by resolving numerous legal disputes, providing practical education and lectures on fair trade law, authoring publications and creating educational content on YouTube. See related article

1. Case Overview The client in this case purchased land for approximately KRW6.5 billion from the suspects in July 2009. During the transaction, the suspects took advantage of their possession of the client's personal seal to affix impressions on multiple blank sheets of paper. Later, they used these blank sheets with the seal impressions to forge an agreement and memorandum in the client's name, falsely stating that the total purchase price was KRW 11 billion and that the client owed them an outstanding balance of KRW 6 billion. The suspects then submitted these forged documents to a civil court, seeking payment based on the fabricated agreement. The client filed a criminal complaint against them for private document forgery and the use of a forged private document. However, the case was initially dismissed, and even an appeal was rejected. It was only after a re-appeal that an order for reinvestigation was issued. 2. Our Argument and Role Although a reinvestigation order was granted, there remained doubts about whether sufficient evidence existed to prove the forgery, given the value of the land in question. Furthermore, the presence of the client’s seal impression on the documents made it particularly challenging to prove that they had been falsified. To counter this, we focused on inconsistencies in the suspects' statements and objective real estate valuation records. The key arguments included: 1. Handwriting analysis confirmed that the suspects had written the client's name on the documents. 2. Recorded phone conversations between the suspects and related parties contradicted the contents of the forged agreement and memorandum. 3. Real estate records indicated that the land's value actually began increasing after the client's purchase, disproving the claim of additional payment obligations. 4. The contents of the forged documents were inconsistent with objective facts from the time of the original sales contract. 5. Despite being allegedly drafted at different times, the documents contained identical seal impressions in the exact same position, suggesting post-fabrication editing and manipulation. We highlighted the collusion between the suspects in their litigation strategy, strengthening the case against them. 3. Result and Significance In private document forgery cases closely tied to civil disputes, victims risk not only criminal victimization but also significant financial losses. When a document bears an actual seal impression, legal presumptions of authenticity make it difficult for the victim to refute its validity. Thus, swift legal intervention is crucial to identifying key issues, understanding the case thoroughly, and developing a strong defense strategy. By choosing Barun Law, a firm with expertise in criminal complaints and defense, the client was able to leverage a comprehensive legal strategy. We successfully led the prosecution to indict the suspects, thereby protecting the client from the risk of losing the subsequent civil lawsuit.

1. Case Overview a. Party Represented by Barun Law: W, the patent holder of the "Glass Screen Protector for Edge Smartphones." b. Background of the Case: W held a patent (the "Patent") for a glass screen protector specifically designed for edge smartphones. However, B filed a lawsuit with the Patent Court, seeking the cancellation of a trial decision, arguing that the Patent lacked inventive step and was therefore invalid. 2. Key Issue Whether the Patent was invalid due to a lack of inventive step. 3. Court Decision Patent Court Decision 2021Heo4638, dated February 13, 2025. 4. Our Argument and the Court's Judgment Before W filed the Patent, no prior technology had disclosed a glass screen protector that covered the entire display area (cover glass) of an edge smartphone. This was due to significant technical challenges in implementing such a design for edge smartphones. Despite these obstacles, W overcame the technological limitations and industry skepticism, developing the patented invention using a liquid optical clear adhesive (OCR) method. This led to securing the Patent, which could be considered a foundational patent in this field. However, some ambiguities in the claim language of the Patent posed a risk to its recognition as an outstanding innovation. To address this, we represented W in the case and formally requested a correction trial with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (IPTAB). Although IPTAB dismissed W's correction request, we pursued a trial decision cancellation lawsuit. In this lawsuit, we thoroughly demonstrated why the corrected Patent remained valid, citing the state of background technology and industry trends at the time of the Patent's application. As a result, we successfully overturned IPTAB's dismissal ruling, and more importantly, the court ruled that the corrected Patent did not lack inventive step, confirming its validity.

1. Case Overview In May 2024, a worker fell to his death while replacing a ceiling light at a facility owned by a non-profit organization. The local labor office launched an investigation into the non-profit organization for alleged violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and the Serious Accidents Punishment Act (SAPA). As part of the investigation, authorities conducted extensive interrogations of the organization's headquarters staff responsible for facility management, as well as on-site managers, administrative personnel, and the deceased worker's colleagues. 2. Our Arguments and Role We focused on two key legal arguments: (1) definition of an "employer" under OSHA and SAPA and (2) lack of intent or foreseeability of violation. We argued that neither the head of the non-profit organization nor the investigated individuals qualified as an "employer" under these laws. A thorough legal analysis of OSHA and SAPA's structure demonstrated that the investigated individuals lacked intent, foreseeability, and a reasonable opportunity to prevent the accident. In addition, we conducted an in-depth review of the non-profit organization's internal regulations, personnel management, budgeting, and expense procedures. Although the facilities were legally owned by the organization, we presented evidence that they were operated independently in practice. As a result, the labor office accepted our arguments and determined that the organization had no criminal liability, concluding the investigation without filing charges ("no indictment" decision). 3. Outcome and Significance This case was the first serious accident involving a non-profit organization since the implementation of SAPA, making it particularly challenging due to the absence of precedents. If the legal and factual arguments had been incomplete, the organization's leader could have faced criminal prosecution and penalties. By meticulously analyzing the legal framework of SAPA and OSHA, we developed a robust defense strategy tailored to the case's specifics. This proactive approach led to a "no indictment" decision, the most favorable possible outcome. Criminal cases can have severe personal and financial consequences, making early and aggressive legal intervention crucial. Had the authorities determined there was a criminal offense, proving innocence would have required a much more demanding legal battle. By engaging Barun Law—a firm with deep expertise in occupational and serious industrial accident law—at the earliest stage, the client successfully avoided criminal liability and potential penalties.

1. Case Overview a. Party Represented by Barun Law: The accused (coin/NFT issuer) b. Case Background: The accused launched a token project, issuing both a coin and NFTs, and informed domestic and international investors that the coin could be exchanged in a liquidity pool. To promote the project, they published a white paper, created a group chat to communicate with investors, and sold NFTs separately from the coin. The coin and NFTs are the token built on a specific mainnet, but around 2022, the value of that mainnet's coin collapsed, causing the issued coin and NFT values to plummet as well. The accused attempted damage control by engaging with investors, but these efforts were ultimately ineffective. As the coin's trading exchange shut down due to internal issues, making transactions nearly impossible, some investors accused the defendant of fraud (so-called "rug pull"), claiming: (i) they falsely promised capital or investment returns despite lacking the intention or ability to provide them or (ii) they misrepresented their intentions or capabilities to run the project and deceived investors into contributing funds. c. Legal Proceedings During the investigation, wen submitted evidence disproving claims that the accused had guaranteed principal protection or misled investors regarding investment returns. A detailed timeline of the mainnet and NFT-related business developments was also provided. We demonstrated that: the accused had never guaranteed principal or returns, they had actively collaborated with major corporate executives and developed use cases to make the project successful, and they had regularly communicated with investors, addressing their concerns and sharing updates transparently. As a result, law enforcement decided not to prosecute. However, the prosecution later ordered a reinvestigation. During the second investigation, we successfully argued that individuals claiming to guarantee investment returns were not associated with the accused and the concept of a decentralized exchange (DEX) was misunderstood by authorities. Ultimately, the non-prosecution decision was upheld. 2. Decision No Prosecution 3. Basis for the Decision The authorities found insufficient evidence proving the claims that the accused fraudulently misled investors about their ability to guarantee principal or returns and lacked intent or capacity to operate the project while falsely claiming otherwise. 4. Our Arguments and Role We emphasized that: - NFTs issued purely as collectibles are not securities, meaning the proceeds do not need to be reinvested in the project. - The structure of a decentralized exchange (DEX) differs from traditional securities or ICO models, and investors who bought tokens via DEXs should not be equated with securities investors. 5. Significance of the Decision Fraud allegations against failed token projects attract significant law enforcement attention due to the large number of affected investors. Proper legal representation from the early stages of an investigation is critical. This case demonstrated the importance of thoroughly analyzing complex blockchain concepts and aligning them with legal fraud definitions to persuade law enforcement. Barun Law's strategic legal defense helped the accused avoid criminal liability in an industry where regulatory scrutiny is rapidly increasing.

1. Case Overview a. Party Represented by Barun Law: The defendant, who was indicted on fraud charges for allegedly defrauding the victim of KRW 4.4 billion in two separate instances. b. Case Background: The defendant was sentenced to four years in prison for fraud in 2017, and the verdict was finalized. In 2018, the defendant was sentenced to one additional year for fraud, and the ruling was finalized in 2019, serving a total of five years in prison. In October 2023, the defendant was indicted for this case's charges. The defendant denied the charges and failed to appear in court for five trial dates. As a result, in August 2024, the court issued an arrest warrant, stating that "the defendant is likely to flee." 2. Decision The court canceled the defendant's detention before the arrest warrant was executed. 3. Our Argument and Role We conducted a thorough review of Article 93 of the Criminal Procedure Act and determined that the cancellation of detention under this provision includes not only the cancellation of detention after an arrest warrant is executed but also the cancellation of the warrant issuance itself. We actively proved that the grounds for detention no longer existed, as the defendant acknowledged the charges and reached a settlement with the victim. Based on these arguments, We submitted a motion for detention cancellation, requesting the revocation of the issued arrest warrant. 4. Significance of the Decision We filed a motion to cancel detention after the arrest warrant had been issued but before its execution. The court granted the motion under Article 93 of the Criminal Procedure Act, even though the defendant had not yet been detained. This decision demonstrates that if an arrest warrant is issued during a trial, the defendant can apply for detention cancellation without undergoing the quasi-appeal process under Article 416 of the Criminal Procedure Act. This case will serve as an important reference for similar cases in the future, providing a legal pathway for the swift cancellation of detention.

1. Case Overview The plaintiff, a company engaged in mechanical equipment construction and interior construction, entered into a debt repayment (quasi-loan) contract in the form of a notarial deed with the defendant, a company engaged in the construction materials supply business. In this contract, the plaintiff acknowledged having an outstanding debt of approximately KRW 5 billion in accumulated loans and construction material payments to the defendant and agreed to allow immediate compulsory enforcement if repayment was not made within the deadline. Subsequently, the defendant applied for garnishment and collection orders against the plaintiff's receivables from construction companies and banks based on the notarial deed, and the court granted the request. To prevent enforcement based on the notarial deed, the plaintiff filed a claim objection lawsuit. However, the first-instance court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, ruling that when a debtor asserts that a claim is invalid due to a fraudulent agreement or extinguished by repayment, the burden of proof lies with the debtor. Since the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence, the court ruled in favor of the defendant. 2. Our Argument and Role In the appellate court, we, representing the plaintiff, focused on the distinction in burden of proof, arguing that while the debtor bears the burden of proving obstacles to the claim's validity or its extinction, the creditor (defendant in this case) must prove the factual basis for the creation of the debt itself. We emphasized that no evidence had been submitted proving the actual occurrence of the underlying debt in the notarial deed. In particular, the defendant claimed that it held a loan claim against A, who effectively operated the plaintiff company. We countered this claim, asserting that the plaintiff and A are separate legal entities and should not be treated as one. Furthermore, the defendant additionally argued that the plaintiff had acted as a joint guarantor for A’s debt. However, we disproved this argument by presenting various pieces of evidence showing that there was no proof that the defendant had lent money to A, and that under Korean law, a guarantee is only valid if explicitly stated in writing with the guarantor's name, signature, or seal—which the plaintiff never provided. Accepting all of our arguments, the appellate court overturned the first-instance ruling and prohibited compulsory enforcement based on the notarial deed against the plaintiff.

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.