On April 30, 2025, Attorney Lee Eung-Se gave a lecture on the topic, "AI and Intellectual Properties" at the National Assembly Library.

Attorney Lee Eung-Se contributed an expert column titled "Road Accidents and the Legal Responsibilities of Road Installers and Managers" to Issue No. 178 (Spring 2025) of "Road Traffic" published by the Korea Road and Transportation Association. Related link : "Road Accidents and the Legal Responsibilities of Road Installers and Managers"

Attorney Choi Jin-Sook has been appointed as an expert member of the Urban Regeneration Investment Review Committee for a term of two years, from April 24, 2025 to April 23, 2027.

Attorney Cho Jae-Bin took part as a co-author of "2025 Digital Asset Policy Report" published by DAXA on April 28, 2025, authoring "Trends in the Domestic Digital Asset Market", which is a part of Session 1, "Current Status of the Digital Asset Industry."

On May 21, 2025, Attorney Cho Jae-Bin gave a lecture on " Responding to Prosecution Investigations: Case Examples" to the CEOs and officers of public enterprises at the 1st Advanced Executive Program in Business and Humanities at Sookmyung Women's University, hosted by the university's Future Education Institute.

Attorney Byon Sang-Yup has been appointed as an executive director of the Institutional Reform Division of the Korean Society of Public-Private Partnerships.

1. Case Overview The plaintiff and the defendant (client) had been married for approximately 40 years and have two children. While the plaintiff was in a weekend marriage arrangement with the defendant, he engaged in an extramarital affair. After the affair was revealed, the plaintiff claimed that both he and his direct ascendants were treated unfairly by the defendant and that they had agreed to a "graduated divorce" (a mutual agreement to live separately while remaining legally married), formalized in a written contract. On this basis, the plaintiff filed for divorce citing Article 840, Items 3, 4, and 6 of the Civil Code, arguing that continuing the marriage had become intolerably difficult due to serious reasons. 2. Our Role We, respecting the client's clear intention to preserve the legal marriage, took a defensive approach aiming to maintain the marital relationship. Through multiple consultations with the client, we thoroughly examined the facts and gathered objective evidence. We proved that the plaintiff and defendant maintained a stable and complete family life until the plaintiff's infidelity, and emphasized that the primary cause of the marital breakdown was the plaintiff's affair. We argued that the responsibility for the marital breakdown rested solely with the plaintiff. Regarding the "graduated divorce" agreement, we contended that it did not constitute a legally binding agreement. In particular, we stressed that the clause in the agreement that waived the obligation of fidelity between the spouses violated public morals and damaged essential aspects protected under the Constitution, thus rendering it invalid. 3. Outcome and Significance The court fully accepted our arguments and dismissed the plaintiff's divorce claim. Since Korean courts generally follow the principle of fault-based divorce, it was critical to clearly establish which spouse was at fault for the marital breakdown. By specifically detailing and proving the plaintiff’s infidelity and the subsequent deterioration of the marital relationship, we successfully demonstrated that the plaintiff was the culpable party. Furthermore, the court affirmed that a "graduated divorce" agreement allowing relationships with third parties and exempting spouses from their sexual fidelity obligations has no legal effect. This ruling is expected to serve as a significant reference in future legal evaluations of such agreements.

1. Case Overview a. Party Represented by Barun Law The general contractor S (Defendant) b. Background of the Case The plaintiff is a subcontractor that supplied materials to a construction site. The plaintiff claimed that a direct payment agreement regarding the material cost (subcontract payment) had been concluded among the plaintiff, the primary contractor, and the ordering party (the defendant), and demanded payment of the outstanding material cost directly from the defendant. The court of first instance found that there was the direct payment agreement made between the plaintiff and the defendant and fully accepted the plaintiff's claim. In the appellate court , the plaintiff asserted claims based on the direct payment agreement, the Subcontracting Act's provisions on direct payment agreements, and claims for damages based on breach of the duty of notification under the principle of good faith (with some additional preliminary claims). 2. Judgment Plaintiff's claims were entirely dismissed (Defendant's appeal upheld). 3. Basis for the Judgment The court first rejected the claim based on the direct payment agreement, stating that it was difficult to conclude that the obligation for direct payment of the subcontract amount was clearly confirmed based on the wording of the agreement in question. Furthermore, the court found that the agreement could be considered a direct payment agreement under the Subcontracting Act. However, it judged that by the time the plaintiff had performed the subcontract work and a basis for direct payment had arisen, the defendant had already paid the primary contractor an amount exceeding the agreed project cost, resulting in the extinguishment of its payment obligation to the primary contractor. Therefore, the court concluded that the defendant had no obligation to directly pay the subcontract amount to the plaintiff, and thus dismissed this part of the claim as well. 4. Our Arguments and Role We highlighted that the wording and nature of the direct payment agreement differed from standard direct payment agreements, and under legal principles, the obligation for direct payment of subcontract costs is limited to the extent of the payment obligation to the primary contractor. We conducted a detailed analysis of the payment records between the defendant and the primary contractor and emphasized that, at the time the obligation to directly pay the plaintiff may have arisen, the defendant had already paid the primary contractor more than the contract amount. The court accepted most of these arguments made by the defendant. 5. Significance of the Judgment This judgment reaffirms the legal principles that: △ In cases involving direct payment agreements for subcontract amounts, the obligation of the ordering party (client) to pay the full subcontract amount directly to the subcontractor does not arise automatically. Instead, the obligation arises only for the portion corresponding to the actual work (manufacture, repair, construction, or services) performed by the subcontractor, and within that range, the ordering party's payment obligation to the primary contractor is extinguished; and △ The obligation for direct payment by the ordering party is limited to the extent of their payment obligation to the primary contractor.

1. Case Overview a. Party Represented by Barun Law The contractor for the new construction of a care facility for the elderly and disabled. b. Background of the Case The ordering party of a new care facility construction project filed a lawsuit for damages in lieu of defect repairs against the contractor, the architect, and the construction supervisor. The plaintiff alleged that due to the lack of waterproof curbs around the bathrooms in the residential units, water leakage defects occurred, and additional waterproof curbs had to be installed, incurring corresponding repair costs. 2. Judgment The court of first instance accepted the plaintiff's claims and held the contractor, architect, and supervisor jointly liable. However, the appellate court dismissed the claims against the contractor and held only the architect and the supervisor jointly liable. 3. Our Arguments and Role This case involved discrepancies among the design documents, leading to differing opinions among the experts as to whether the installation of waterproof curbs was actually instructed. The plaintiff claimed that instructions for the curbs were indicated in the waterproofing plan and standard cross-section drawings of the residential units, and the trial court accepted this claim. On appeal, we argued and proved that: ① The detailed drawings, including those for waterproof curbs and lightweight wall sections, did not include instructions for installing waterproof curbs; ② The item was missing from the quantity breakdown in the unit price bidding process; ③ The contractor had reviewed the design documents prior to construction, discovered inconsistencies between them, and properly notified the supervisor, architect, and ordering party—thus fulfilling its duty of notice. Based on these points, we demonstrated that the contractor was not obligated to install the waterproof curbs and had fulfilled all contractual obligations under the construction agreement. As a result, the court found that no construction defects existed. 4. Significance of the Judgment We carefully analyzed the detailed drawings, quantity estimates, and construction process in a case where the parties—ordering party, contractor, architect, and supervisor—were sharply divided in their positions. We effectively argued and proved that the contractor had fulfilled all obligations under the construction contract. This case is expected to serve as a valuable precedent in future construction-related litigation for determining the scope of responsibilities and obligations among contractors, architects, and construction supervisors.

1. Case Overview a. Party Represented by Barun Law The redevelopment association that sold newly built apartment units in a redevelopment project. b. Background of the Case Buyers of newly constructed apartment units in a redevelopment project claimed that, in 3 out of the 9 buildings, the basement-level 1 parking lot was not directly connected to the buildings. They alleged that the redevelopment association failed to disclose this fact through any means, including in the official apartment offering announcement, and thus violated its duty of notification under the principle of good faith. On this basis, they filed claims for damages corresponding to a drop in the sale value. In addition, they filed an injunction to prevent the dissolution of the redevelopment association, arguing that execution based on a potential future court ruling would become impossible if the association were dissolved. 2. Judgment The court dismissed all claims by the buyers. 3. Our Arguments and Role We analyzed concrete materials such as the apartment offering notice, sales contracts, project approval documents, and photos of the model house. Based on this, we argued and proved that the buyers' claims for damages were not legally valid, relying on the following points: 1. Due to the site layout, different underground parking designs for each building were inevitable and were approved accordingly; 2.The offering announcement and sales contracts clearly indicated that differences between buildings were possible; 3. The redevelopment association never created a legitimate expectation that all buildings would be directly connected to the basement-level 1 parking; 4. Even without direct elevator access to basement level 1, residents could still use the basement facilities; 5. Apartment pricing depends on various factors such as brand, location, and unit size; and 6. The appraisal report comparing unrelated apartment complexes to estimate the damage was unreliable. Regarding the motion to prevent the dissolution of the association, we also successfully argued that, under the Civil Act and the Urban Redevelopment Act, legal procedures for liquidation allow lawsuits to continue even after dissolution, and thus there was no legal barrier requiring such an injunction. 4. Significance of the Judgment We carefully reviewed the apartment offering materials and actual usage conditions to effectively argue and prove that the alleged damages claimed by buyers were not legally substantiated. We also responded effectively to the court's site inspection and valuation process, leading to the complete dismissal of all buyer claims. As disputes surrounding apartment sales increase amid a slowing real estate market, this case is expected to serve as a significant reference in similar future disputes.

1. Case Overview a. Party Represented by Barun Law In this case, we represented the plaintiff, a redevelopment association that commissioned the infrastructure construction project. b. Background of the Case The plaintiff issued a public bid for the installation of redevelopment infrastructure. The bid was awarded to the defendant, a general construction company, and a construction contract was executed. However, after the commencement of the project, it was discovered that the defendant was unqualified, as it had not been registered under the Electrical Construction Business Act at the time of bidding and contract execution. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to cancel the contract on the grounds of a mistake regarding a material aspect of the agreement and sought the return of the progress payments already made. c. Litigation The defendant argued that it had completed its registration under the Electrical Construction Business Act during the project and that the registration requirement had not been specified in the bid notice. 2. Judgment The court fully upheld the plaintiff's claims. 3. Basis for the Judgment The court determined that the project involved the installation of infrastructure, and that the scope of work under the contract included road electrical installations—such as streetlights, landscape lighting, security lighting, and traffic signals—which fall under the Electrical Construction Business Act. Accordingly, only contractors registered under the Electrical Construction Business Act may be awarded or carry out such work (Articles 3(1) and 4(1) of the Act). The court ruled that the fact the defendant was not registered at the time of contract execution constituted a material circumstance that would have prevented a reasonable person from entering into the contract. Thus, the court ruled that the contract was canceled due to a mistake, and ordered the defendant to return the previously paid progress payments. 4. Our Arguments and Role We emphasized that road electrical installations, as part of redevelopment infrastructure under the Urban Redevelopment Act, can only be contracted out to businesses properly registered under the Electrical Construction Business Act. This requirement is fundamental and essential to the validity of a construction contract. We further argued that the defendant's lack of registration at the time of contract execution constituted a material mistake justifying cancellation of the contract. 5. Significance of the Judgment This ruling affirms the legal principle that, even if the bid notice does not explicitly state the requirement for registration under the Electrical Construction Business Act, work classified as redevelopment infrastructure can only be contracted to those duly registered. The decision underscores the duty to thoroughly verify qualification requirements during bidding and contracting, and provides a legal basis for canceling contracts and reclaiming progress payments when entered into with unqualified parties.

1. Case Overview a. Party Represented by Barun Law We represented purchasers of penthouse units in an officetel. b. Background of the Case The plaintiffs purchased units advertised as penthouses with large terraces. However, the units were actually rooftop structures rather than true penthouses, and the terraces—advertised as part of the exclusive area—were equipped with common facilities such as ventilation ducts, rope hooks, and ladders. These terraces were accessible only through each unit's exclusive areas. c. Litigation The purchasers had paid 2–3 times more than other units of the same size due to the claim that these were penthouses with large terraces. However, the terraces had common facilities—especially large ventilation ducts—not disclosed at the time of the sale. The plaintiffs sought to cancel the contract on the grounds of fraud or mistake and demanded the return of the down payment and interim payments already made. 2. Judgment The court ruled fully in favor of the plaintiffs in relation to units with ventilation ducts installed. 3. Basis for the Judgment The officetel units in question were marketed with an emphasis on terrace use. As such, the ability to use the terrace and its scope constituted a material element of the sale contracts. The installed ventilation ducts were part of a common exhaust system for the building—serving kitchens, bathrooms, etc., on floors above the 30th floor. Since the presence of these ducts significantly diminished the usability and value of the terraces, the seller had an obligation to inform the buyers of the existence of the ducts, but failed to do so. The court found that this failure constituted a deceptive omission and that the buyers entered the contracts under a mistaken belief. Thus, the contracts could be canceled. 4. Our Arguments and Role We successfully argued that the existence of common facilities on the terraces had not been disclosed at the time of contracting. When the court did not allow an on-site inspection, we submitted detailed interior and exterior video footage clearly showing that the units were far from being true penthouses. We also used drone footage comparing this officetel's rooftop to other buildings, demonstrating that the ventilation ducts could have been installed elsewhere—strengthening the claim that the sale had been misleading. 5. Significance of the Judgment This case establishes that if essential terms of a contract are not properly disclosed, the buyer may cancel the sale. It serves as a meaningful precedent for similar cases involving non-disclosure and misrepresentation in real estate sales.

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.