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 a. Party Represented by Barun Law: A public institution related to media (Respondent). b. Case Background: The respondent operated support programs for journalists, including the petitioner, and the petitioner was selected as a beneficiary. However, after misconduct during the petitioner's previous tenure at a media company was discovered, the respondent notified the petitioner of the termination of support. The petitioner filed an administrative lawsuit (including a request for execution suspension) in the premise that the termination was an administrative disposition. c. Litigation Details: In this lawsuit, a key issue raised as a preliminary defense was whether the respondent's suspension of support constituted an administrative disposition. In addition, it was contested whether the petitioner's alleged damages resulting from the suspension of support could be compensated with monetary compensation, thereby affecting the necessity of preservation. As a substantive issue, there was also contention over whether the respondent's suspension of support was unlawful or unjust in light of the public notice of the support program and other relevant factors. 2. Judgment: The court dismissed the petition (in favor of the respondent). 3. Rationale for the Judgment: The court determined that: although the respondent, as a public institution, operates under the supervision of the Minister of Culture, Sports, and Tourism, this alone does not establish a public-law relationship between the petitioner and the respondent; there is no statutory basis to conclude that the respondent was delegated or entrusted with administrative authority concerning the program by the state; the program and its operations, including the selection or cancellation of beneficiaries, were not subject to legal regulations; and therefore, the respondent's decision to terminate support does not qualify as an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation. 4. Our Role and Arguments: We focused on the lack of "dispositional nature" as a legal requirement for administrative litigation from the early stages of the case. By analyzing relevant laws, funding sources, and the respondent's internal regulations (e.g., articles of association), we argued that the program was not delegated or entrusted administrative authority by the state. As a result, we successfully secured an early dismissal of the petitioner's request, which is expected to provide critical evidence for the main litigation. 5. Significance of the Judgment: This decision reaffirms the principle that actions restricting the rights of others cannot be deemed administrative dispositions unless they are conducted by administrative bodies, their affiliated institutions, or public organizations delegated or entrusted with administrative authority.

1. Case Overview a. Party Represented by Barun Law: Three shareholders (co-defendants) b. Case Background and Litigation Details: A dispute arose among the co-founders of a company, and in the process of resolving it, a memorandum of agreement was executed with the intent of transferring shares. The plaintiff, a co-founder, relied on the memorandum executed with the defendant, another co-founder ("Defendant 1"), and (1) against Defendant 1 (a) claimed that a sales contract had been concluded for a portion of the shares held by Defendant 1, and (b) claimed that the conditions for penalties had been met concerning the remaining shares, demanding the transfer of those shares, and (2) against the other defendants ("Defendant 2" and "Defendant 3", who are family members of Defendant 1) alleged that the shares held by them were actually held in trust for Defendant 1 and sought to terminate the trust on behalf of Defendant 1 and demand the transfer of the shares, citing that the conditions for penalties had been met. 2. Judgment:Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2022Gadan279386, dated January 9, 2025 (Claim Dismissed) 3. Basis of Judgement: The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, ruling that no sales contract or penalty agreement had been validly formed based on the following reasons: 1. The existence of circumstances necessitating the appearance of an agreement. 2. Lack of specificity and finality in the expressions of offer and acceptance, which are essential for contract formation. 3. Significant imbalance between the obligations and counter-obligations. 4. The fact that the parties had planned to execute a separate, more detailed contract in the future. 4. Our Arguments and Role: (1) Regarding the claim against Defendant 1: - Argued that the alleged sales contract and penalty agreement: - (a) Were not validly formed, given the circumstances of execution and the specificity and definitiveness of the expressions of intent, - (b) Were null and void under Articles 103, 104, 607, and 608 of the Civil Act, - (c) Were subject to cancellation under Articles 109 and 110 of the Civil Act, or - (d) Did not meet the conditions for liquidated damages, and - (e) Were entirely rescinded due to the plaintiff's non-performance. (2) Regarding the claims against Defendants 2 and 3: - (a) Argued that the claim based on the penalty agreement was invalid for the same reasons stated above. - (b) Contended that no trust relationship existed between Defendant 1 and the other defendants. 5. Significance of the Decision: The ruling reaffirms that the burden of proof for contract formation lies with the party asserting its existence. It suggests that, even if a memorandum of agreement exists between both parties, a contract may ultimately be deemed unformed based on the circumstances of contract negotiation, the contract terms, and the form and content of the expressions of intent constituting the contract.

1. Case Overview a. Party Represented by Barun Law: The defendant, who was sued for trademark use prohibition and damages. b. Case Background: Company W filed a trademark application on November 11, 2019, including the mark "A" for restaurant chain services, and obtained trademark registration on January 19, 2021 (the "Trademark"). Meanwhile, Company J, completely unaware of the existence of the Trademark, opened its first franchise store under the trademark "A 떡볶이" ("Client's Trademark") in January 2020. As of 2024, J operates a significant number of franchise stores nationwide. In 2023, W filed a lawsuit against J, alleging trademark infringement and seeking a prohibition on the use of Client's Trademark along with substantial damages. However, the Seoul Central District Court ruled on January 19, 2024, that Client's Trademark was not similar to the Trademark and dismissed all of W's claims (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2023Gahap47495, dated January 19, 2024). Following the ruling, W appealed the decision. In addition, K, who acquired the Trademark on April 1, 2024, joined the appellate proceedings, and both W and K asserted that J had infringed upon the Trademark. 2. Judgement and Legal Rationale: Patent Court Decision 2024Na10256, dated December 19, 2024 On December 19, 2024, the Patent Court upheld our arguments and dismissed both W's appeal and the claims of W and K. Specifically, the court found that the textual component "A" in the Trademark did not constitute a distinctive and dominant element. As a result, the mere inclusion of "A" in Client's Trademark was insufficient to establish trademark infringement. 3. Our Arguments and Role: Representing J, we successfully demonstrated from multiple perspectives that there was no trademark infringement. Specifically, we argued that (1) Client's Trademark was not "similar" to the Trademark; (2) the Trademark was invalid, and enforcing it constituted an abuse of rights; and (3) the Trademark had no legal effect over Client's Trademark. We effectively proved that J had not infringed on the Trademark and focused heavily on presenting various legal and factual arguments to establish the dissimilarity between the two trademarks. The issue of trademark similarity is one of the most crucial aspects of trademark infringement litigation. While legal principles on similarity are well-established, determining whether two specific trademarks are similar is often complex and subjective, as different decision-makers may reach varying conclusions on the same marks. In this case, W attempted to argue similarity based on its own reasoning. However, leveraging extensive experience in handling trademark disputes, we demonstrated from multiple perspectives that the two trademarks were not similar, ultimately securing a clear victory for J.

1. Case Overview a. Party Represented by Barun Law: A defendant indicted for violating the Capital Markets Act (market manipulation and fraudulent trading). b. Case Background: The defendant is a pseudo-investment advisor and a YouTuber dealing with stock related content. Prosecutors alleged that the defendant conspired with co-defendants during the acquisition of Company A. While the co-defendants were recruiting financial investors and artificially influencing Company A's stock price, the defendant allegedly promoted stock purchases in their stock advisory chatroom to encourage members to buy and hold Company A's shares on ten occasions for the short period of time. The prosecution claimed that this coordinated effort resulted in: market manipulation through real transactions (as provided in Article 176(1)(1) of the Capital Markets Act); stock price stabilization and fixing (as provided in Article 176(3)(1) of the Capital Markets Act); and fraudulent transactions (as provided in Article 178(1)(1), 178(2) of the Capital Markets Act) As a result, the defendant was indicted for colluding in stock price manipulation and engaging in deceptive market practices. 2. Judgment and Legal Rationale: Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2023Gohap327, dated January 7, 2025 The court convicted the co-defendants for the crime of violating the Capital Markets Act (specifically, market manipulation, circulation of rumors and misleading), sentencing them to imprisonment. However, the defendant was fully acquitted. The court found that the defendant had discussed the acquisition and stock price fluctuations of Company A with the co-defendants. However, after carefully analyzing the content and format of stock purchase recommendations made in the chatroom, the differences between the defendant's actions and those of the co-defendants, the consistency of testimonies, and the lack of criminal intent, the court concluded that the defendant did not have a shared intent to commit the crime nor exercised functional control over the crime, leading to a complete acquittal. 3. Our Arguments and Role: From the investigation stage, we meticulously reviewed the entire evidence record. The defense team adopted the following legal strategy: accepting the prosecution's documentary evidence but contesting the legal basis of the alleged joint criminal intent and execution. We gathered and presented testimony to disprove the defendant's alleged involvement in the co-defendants' scheme, analyzing the structure of stock recommendations in the defendant's advisory chatroom to demonstrate that the defendant's actions did not meet the legal criteria for a Capital Markets Act violation. We also highlighted key differences between the defendant and another convicted co-conspirator ("Person X"), who played a lock-up role in the scheme and cross-examined Person X to emphasize distinctions between their roles. We were able to extract favorable statements that were used to strengthen the defense. 4. Significance of the Ruling This case is significant because it establishes an important legal precedent amid the growing regulatory crackdown on stock advisory chatrooms and investment recommendations. Despite increasing enforcement, our thorough evidence reviews, strategic legal arguments, and rigorous challenge of the prosecution's case led to a persuasive acquittal. The successful defense strategy in this case serves as a critical reference for future market manipulation and fraudulent trading cases, highlighting the importance of careful case analysis and proactive legal advocacy in capital market crime defense.

Attorneys Lee Joon, Park Sang-oh, Choi Young-joo, and Park Ji-won of Barun Law LLC provided legal advisory services to Woori Asset Management regarding the sale of trust beneficiary rights in a shopping mall (AEON Mall) located in Okinawa, Japan, utilizing the GK-TK structure. The transaction was successfully completed. During the process, the attorneys worked closely with a local Japanese law firm (Nishimura & Asahi) to conduct contract reviews and modifications, identify legal issues, and facilitate negotiations, providing comprehensive legal support for the sale of real estate trust beneficiary rights. According to the Nikkei newspaper, Japan's real estate market is expected to reach approximately 500 trillion yen in transaction volume by 2025, marking the highest transaction value in the past decade. This surge is driven by a sharp increase in tourism and corporate asset sales, presenting new opportunities for domestic companies and investors.

1. Case Overview a. Party Represented by Barun Law: A defendant indicted for violating the Capital Markets Act (market manipulation and fraudulent trading). b. Case Background: The defendant is a pseudo-investment advisor and a YouTuber dealing with stock related content. Prosecutors alleged that the defendant conspired with co-defendants during the acquisition of Company A. While the co-defendants were recruiting financial investors and artificially influencing Company A's stock price, the defendant allegedly promoted stock purchases in their stock advisory chatroom to encourage members to buy and hold Company A's shares on ten occasions for the short period of time. The prosecution claimed that this coordinated effort resulted in: market manipulation through real transactions (as provided in Article 176(1)(1) of the Capital Markets Act); stock price stabilization and fixing (as provided in Article 176(3)(1) of the Capital Markets Act); and fraudulent transactions (as provided in Article 178(1)(1), 178(2) of the Capital Markets Act) As a result, the defendant was indicted for colluding in stock price manipulation and engaging in deceptive market practices. 2. Judgment and Legal Rationale: Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2023Gohap327, dated January 7, 2025 The court convicted the co-defendants for the crime of violating the Capital Markets Act (specifically, market manipulation, circulation of rumors and misleading), sentencing them to imprisonment. However, the defendant was fully acquitted. The court found that the defendant had discussed the acquisition and stock price fluctuations of Company A with the co-defendants. However, after carefully analyzing the content and format of stock purchase recommendations made in the chatroom, the differences between the defendant's actions and those of the co-defendants, the consistency of testimonies, and the lack of criminal intent, the court concluded that the defendant did not have a shared intent to commit the crime nor exercised functional control over the crime, leading to a complete acquittal. 3. Our Arguments and Role: From the investigation stage, we meticulously reviewed the entire evidence record. The defense team adopted the following legal strategy: accepting the prosecution's documentary evidence but contesting the legal basis of the alleged joint criminal intent and execution. We gathered and presented testimony to disprove the defendant's alleged involvement in the co-defendants' scheme, analyzing the structure of stock recommendations in the defendant's advisory chatroom to demonstrate that the defendant's actions did not meet the legal criteria for a Capital Markets Act violation. We also highlighted key differences between the defendant and another convicted co-conspirator ("Person X"), who played a lock-up role in the scheme and cross-examined Person X to emphasize distinctions between their roles. We were able to extract favorable statements that were used to strengthen the defense. 4. Significance of the Ruling This case is significant because it establishes an important legal precedent amid the growing regulatory crackdown on stock advisory chatrooms and investment recommendations. Despite increasing enforcement, our thorough evidence reviews, strategic legal arguments, and rigorous challenge of the prosecution's case led to a persuasive acquittal. The successful defense strategy in this case serves as a critical reference for future market manipulation and fraudulent trading cases, highlighting the importance of careful case analysis and proactive legal advocacy in capital market crime defense.

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.