Attorney Choi Yeong-Noh has been appointed as a director of the Korea Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation on March 1, 2025.

Attorney Son Heung-Soo will be teaching a course titled "Insolvency Law II," focusing on case law related to insolvency, during the Spring 2025 semester at University Graduate School of Legal Studies Civil Procedure Law Department. The course will be attended by 96 students, comprised of actual legal practitioners, including court officials and corporate legal team members. Since the Fall 2016 semester, Attorney Son has been serving as an adjunct professor at Korea University Law School's Civil Procedure Law Department, teaching both theoretical and practical aspects of civil enforcement law and insolvency law. In the next semester, he is scheduled to teach a course titled "Case Studies in Civil Enforcement Law." Attorney Son has been serving as an adjunct professor at University Graduate School of Legal Studies Civil Procedure Law Department, teaching both theoretical and practical aspects of civil enforcement law and insolvency law. In the next semester, he is scheduled to teach a course titled "Case Studies in Civil Enforcement Law."

On April 5, 2025, Attorney Son Heung-Soo delivered a lecture on "Delivery Enforcement of Property (Real Estate and Movable Property)" at the Korean Bar Association's 467th Special Training Program on Civil Enforcement. The lecture was based on Attorney Son's publication, "Practical Guide to Enforcement of Real Estate Eviction and Demolition (2020)," and focused on the practical aspects of enforcing the delivery of real estate, buildings, and custody of minors. The session was held at the Seoul Bar Association Hall and attended by around 100 lawyers. The video recording of the lecture is expected to be made available online in the near future. Attorney Son is an expert on civil execution, who has published numerous books and publications concerning the area, and he is also scheduled to deliver lectures on "Practical Aspects of Objections to Provisional Remedies" and "Practical Aspects of Provisional Status Orders" at the Korean Bar Association’s 472nd Special Training Program on Provisional Remedies, on May 17, 2025.

Attorney Cho Jae-Bin has been appointed as a legal counsel for Shinhan Bank.

Attorney Choi Young-Chan has been appointed as legal counsel for Gyeongin National University of Education (GNUE) from April 2025 to March 2027. In this role, Attorney Choi will provide legal services including advising on faculty personnel matters and various legal issues, reviewing and drafting major litigation documents, representing GNUE in related lawsuits, and providing counsel and representation in contract and administrative appeal cases.

Attorney Kim Tae-Hyung has been appointed as a legal advisory member of the Special Committee on Juvenile Crime Prevention Research under the Korean Association of Criminology (a non-profit organization) for the year 2025. He is expected to conduct research on the current state and causes of juvenile crime, as well as on domestic and international legal systems and practices.

1. Case Overview The intervening defendant is a school foundation that established and operates University A, and the plaintiff was a faculty member at University A whose appointment was scheduled to expire on February 28, 2022. According to the university's regulations, for faculty reappointment, seven academic papers must be published during the appointment period. If a paper is scheduled to be published but not yet available at the time of the reappointment review, the faculty member must submit a certificate proving its scheduled publication date falls within the appointment period to the Faculty Performance Evaluation Committee and later submit the original publication within the term (hereinafter referred to as the "Required Academic Publication Criteria"). The plaintiff was notified of non-reappointment on the grounds of falling short by six papers. Subsequently, in December 2021, the plaintiff published two papers and submitted their offprints in January 2022. For the remaining four papers, the plaintiff obtained certificates of scheduled publication on February 28, 2022 (showing the expected publication date as February 28, 2022) and submitted these to the Office of Academic Affairs, but did not submit the original publications or offprints. All four papers were published in academic journals listed by the National Research Foundation of Korea and were registered in the Korea Citation Index (KCI) between late February and March 2022, becoming available online. The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking cancellation of the non-reappointment decision. When the appeal was dismissed, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit challenging the decision of the appeals committee on grounds of unlawfulness. The lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that because the plaintiff had submitted proof of scheduled publication for four papers by February 28, 2022 (within the appointment term), the university should have conducted a substantive review of those papers. The court held that the university had abused its discretion by issuing the non-reappointment notice without a fair evaluation process. 2. Key Issue and Our Role The main legal issue in this case was whether the university had abused its discretion by not conducting a substantive review of the four papers for which the plaintiff submitted proof of scheduled publication on February 28, 2022 within the appointment period, and which were in fact published later. We argued: ① University regulations, grounded in the Constitution and relevant laws, have binding force in the absence of exceptional circumstances. Therefore, a non-reappointment decision based on those regulations does not constitute an abuse of discretion. ② A certificate of scheduled publication does not allow for a substantive review of the article's content. Conducting a review based on an unfinalized manuscript compromises the fairness of the evaluation by treating unpublished works as if they were valid. ③ The plaintiff's inability to have the four papers substantively reviewed was not due to the evaluation committee's failure to give the plaintiff any evaluation opportunity but rather because the plaintiff only submitted certificates without the articles' contents on the last day of the appointment period. ④ Even if the plaintiff met the publication requirement after the appointment period ended, that fact could not be considered in the current reappointment review. We actively asserted these points based on a thorough legal analysis and objective facts. 3. Supreme Court Decision and Significance The Supreme Court accepted most of our arguments and overturned the lower court's ruling, finding that the non-reappointment decision did not constitute an abuse of discretion for failing to substantively review the four papers. If the lower court's decision had been upheld, the university would be required in future reappointment reviews to wait until papers submitted with only proof of scheduled publication are listed in the KCI and verifiable before making final decisions. This would impose significant operational burdens on the university's academic calendar. Thanks to our sound legal reasoning and argumentation, the Supreme Court issued a reversal and remand decision in just about four months after the appeal was filed.

1. Case Summary and Key Issues The clients are employees of the Elevator Team at XX Construction Office under the Metropolitan Headquarters of Korea Railroad Corporation (KORAIL) (Team leader: Client 1, Deputy: Client 2). At the time of the reverse-running escalator accident at XX Station on June 8, 2023 (12 people injured), they were in charge of maintenance, improvement, safety inspection, and construction supervision of elevators and other related facilities at the station and were the managing entities for the escalator under the Elevator Safety Management Act. XX Construction Office had entrusted the inspection, repair, and maintenance of the elevators to a private contractor, and had the contractor perform the self-inspection of the escalators required at least once a month under the Elevator Safety Management Act. Meanwhile, Client 2, an employee of the Elevator Team at XX Construction Office, supervised the monthly safety inspection conducted by the contractor under the instructions of Client 1. While inspecting the escalator during the regular safety check in April 2023, the contractor's employee judged that a part of the auxiliary brake needed replacement and temporarily tied it with a cable tie without reporting it to the Elevator Team. The contractor falsely marked the escalator as "normal" in the inspection report and did not replace the part. As a result, on June 8, 2023, the escalator reversed due to the weight of passengers, and the auxiliary brake failed to operate properly, causing passengers to fall and pile up, resulting in injuries to 12 people. The Railway Police of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport (MOLIT) considered that Client 1 had failed to ensure that Client 2 attended the May regular inspection by assigning him to other tasks, and that Client 2, during the April inspection, failed to properly supervise and thus did not discover the cable tie. They deemed these actions to constitute negligence and referred both clients to the prosecution. 2. Our Arguments We argued that there was no regulation stating that the construction office staff must attend the contractor's regular inspections, and the service contract and scope of work document included instructions for cases where on-site attendance by the managing entity (the Construction Office) was not possible. We further argued that in KORAIL's "Comprehensive Elevator Safety Management Plan" prepared prior to the incident, it was stated that the on-site attendance rate was about 60%, which demonstrated that attendance was not mandatory. We also argued that since the employees of the Elevator Team at the Construction Office did not possess specific technical licenses or expertise, it was unreasonable to expect them to supervise at the same professional level as the contractor's inspectors. Given the large number of elevators and escalators subject to inspection, there was no reason to inspect this particular escalator with special attention, and it was difficult to expect the clients to detect the contractor's false report and input. The prosecution accepted all these arguments and ruled that simply not attending the inspection or staying until the end of it was not enough to constitute a lack of supervision, and therefore issued a "no charges" decision. 3. Outcome and Significance Under relevant laws, the clients were the managing entities of the escalator, and the accident resulted in injuries to 12 users, so the likelihood of occupational negligence being recognized was high. However, we were able to argue that the clients were not technical experts and had delegated the management to a contractor, that there was no legal obligation for on-site attendance, and that the incident was primarily the fault of the inspection contractor. As a result, it was concluded that the clients were not guilty of occupational negligence, and a "no charges" decision was successfully secured.

1. Case Summary The client is a professor who, in accordance with the law, is serving as an duputy professor after previously working as an assistant professor at one of Korea's four Institutes of Science and Technology (hereinafter referred to as "School A"), which was established as a national research institution under law. When the president of School A previously issued a disposition refusing the client's appointment as a tenured professor, the client filed a claim with the Teachers' Appeal Review Committee, and the committee rendered a cancellation decision (hereinafter "prior cancellation decision") based on procedural and substantive defects in the refusal. Despite this prior cancellation decision, School A continued to reappoint the client on a periodic basis but did not appoint the client as a tenured professor. School A later sent the client an email stating that the client would be reappointed for another two years, but also notified the client that it was rejecting the client's tenure appointment in the first tenure review (hereinafter, the part of the notification rejecting the tenure appointment is referred to as "the refusal disposition"). The client filed a new appeal with the Teachers' Appeal Review Committee seeking the cancellation of the refusal disposition against the president of School A. However, the committee dismissed the claim on the grounds that, according to School A's personnel guidelines, professors who are not approved in the first tenure review may be granted a second review period, and thus, the refusal disposition did not constitute an unfavorable disposition that directly altered the professor's status. The client subsequently filed an administrative lawsuit challenging the legality of the committee's dismissal. 2. Our Arguments and Role In the administrative lawsuit, we, representing the client, sought to demonstrate the illegality of the Teachers' Appeal Review Committee’s dismissal. We cited Supreme Court precedents regarding recognizability and predictability from the standpoint of the subject of an administrative action, as well as precedents concerning the application rights of professors at national and public universities. We emphasized that the refusal disposition communicated via email was not a mere notification but rather an unfavorable disposition that, from the client's standpoint considering recognizability and predictability, imposed substantial disadvantages on the professor's status. Taking into account the intent of the prior cancellation decision, we argued that the client had a right to a fair review and disposition regardless of whether a second tenure review opportunity might be granted, and thus had a legitimate application right based on legal principles. 3. Judgment a. Final Judgment of Administrative Court The Seoul Administrative Court ruled that, regardless of whether the president of School A had the authority under relevant regulations to grant a second review period to a professor who failed the first tenure review, the refusal of the tenure appointment itself clearly constituted an "unfavorable disposition contrary to the will of the teacher" under Article 7(1) of the Act on the Status of Teachers and Others, which is subject to appeal. The court found it reasonable to conclude that the client had the right to request a review based on reasonable criteria and fair evaluation by the president of School A regarding the tenure appointment. As such, the committee's decision to dismiss the appeal by deeming the refusal disposition not to be an "unfavorable disposition" was unlawful, and the court rendered a judgment to cancel that decision. b. Retrial by the Teachers' Appeal Review Committee As the Teachers' Appeal Review Committee did not appeal the Seoul Administrative Court's decision to cancel the dismissal, the judgment became final. In accordance with the confirmed decision recognizing the refusal disposition as subject to appeal, the committee proceeded with a retrial of the initial appeal. In the retrial, we continued to represent the client, arguing that School A violated its duty to take follow-up action in accordance with the binding effect of the prior cancellation decision under the Administrative Appeals Act, and that, despite the prior decision, School A still failed to establish specific criteria for tenure appointment review. We pointed out multiple procedural and substantive flaws in the refusal disposition, ultimately leading the Teachers' Appeal Review Committee to accept these arguments and issue a decision to cancel the refusal disposition. 4. Significance of the Judgment According to a recent Constitutional Court decision, Institutes of Science and Technology, which are public organizations established under law, cannot file administrative lawsuits against decisions by the Teachers' Appeal Review Committee (Constitutional Court en banc decision 2019HunBa117, dated October 27, 2022). Accordingly, the committee's decision to cancel the refusal disposition became final without challenge, and the tenure appointment refusal by School A was retroactively nullified. As a result, School A is now obligated, under Article 49(2) of the Administrative Appeals Act and Article 10(3) of the Act on the Status of Teachers and Others, to promptly establish fair tenure appointment review criteria and take necessary appointment actions for the client, and to report the results to the committee. This case serves as a warning against improper treatment of professors by Institutes of Science and Technology — although not national or public universities in the strict sense — which, as public organizations established by law, hold a strong public-interest character. The case also aligns with the legislative intent of the Act on the Status of Teachers and Others, which aims to robustly protect the status of teachers, and with recent trends in case law.

1. Case Summary a. Party represented by Barun Law The representative of the initiators of the meeting to dismiss association executives (Petitioner) b. Background of the case When the petitioner, as the representative of the initiators of the dismissal meeting, announced the convening of an extraordinary general meeting on March 29, 2025, for the purpose of dismissing executives and suspending their duties, the respondent (the president subject to dismissal) convened a regular general meeting on March 22, 2025, and included as one of its agenda items a resolution to extend the terms of the same executives subject to dismissal. c. Litigation The petitioner sought an injunction to prohibit the resolution regarding the term extension of the executives from being passed at the regular general meeting scheduled for March 22, 2025. 2. Court Decision The court granted the injunction, ruling that a resolution on the extension of the executives' terms may not be adopted at the regular general meeting on March 22, 2025, and that this decision must be publicly announced. 3. Legal Grounds of the Decision The court accepted our argument that, when an agenda item at a properly convened dismissal meeting is substantially identical to or inconsistent with that of another meeting, a separate meeting cannot be held at a closely adjacent time in a manner that would interfere with the former. Accordingly, the court held that it was improper to convene the regular meeting in a way that could obstruct the scheduled dismissal meeting. 4. Our Arguments and Role We emphasized that holding a regular general meeting just one week before the scheduled dismissal meeting, with an agenda to resolve the reappointment of the same executives, could hinder the dismissal meeting in a practical sense—particularly in terms of quorum and voting thresholds. The respondent argued that the meetings were held on different dates and involved non-conflicting agenda items, thus not constituting interference. However, we countered this by underscoring the legislative intent of the Urban Redevelopment Act, which aims to ensure democratic control of the association by its members. We also stressed that the president (respondent) lacked the authority to propose a resolution to extend the executives' terms at the regular meeting under such circumstances. 5. Significance of the Decision In the past, most injunction cases prohibiting meetings that interfere with the dismissal of association executives involved meetings scheduled for the same date. In this case, however, we shifted focus not only to the timing of the meetings but also to the content of the agenda items. The court prohibited a resolution at a meeting held one week before the dismissal meeting that conflicted with the dismissal agenda. This ruling is significant in that it may serve as a precedent to prevent association leadership from preemptively obstructing dismissal efforts through the indirect scheduling of alternative meetings under the guise of regular procedure.

1. Case Overview and Issues The client was deceived by a female suspect who claimed to be conducting a business from around 2017 to 2019. As a result, the client lost his entire fortune and even borrowed money from acquaintances to provide funds to the suspect, suffering a total financial loss of approximately KRW 10 billion. The suspect deceived the client by presenting various false justifications such as: "I need compensation funds for exports to China", "I must pay tax audit penalties", "I need to pay employees’ salaries", and "I need funds for exports to Japan." The suspect borrowed money under these pretexts and returned it periodically, creating an illusion of legitimate business operations, which led the client to mistakenly believe that the suspect was managing a real enterprise. In an effort to raise funds for the suspect's supposed business, the client lied to acquaintances, which ultimately led to a conviction and a confirmed prison sentence of five years. At the time, the client was unrepresented by legal counsel and appeared to have received an unduly harsh sentence due to inadequate defense. As the execution of the sentence approached, the client visited us, known for exceptional capabilities in criminal defense, requesting assistance in ensuring the suspect’s arrest and recovering the losses. 2. Our Arguments and Role Upon quickly reviewing the facts of the complaint, we launched an active defense strategy and emphasized to the investigators that the suspect had forged numerous documents—including commercial invoices, bills of lading, bankbook copies, and balance certificates—as part of her fraudulent scheme. We urged the investigation team to expedite the case. Despite the case involving fraud worth tens of billions of Korean won, the investigation had been stagnant for several years, led only by a prosecutor without the involvement of senior prosecutors or the district chief. However, our proactive advocacy revealed the full extent of the victim's injustice, prompting the investigative authorities to consolidate related cases and expedite the investigation process. As the suspect's arrest warrant was being considered, we submitted petitions from the client's family, highlighting their total financial ruin and difficult circumstances, which contributed to the court's decision to issue the warrant. 3. Result and Significance Facing imminent imprisonment, the client turned to us for help, and thanks to a swift and strategic response, the suspect—who had consistently denied the allegations—was promptly arrested. We are now actively exploring avenues for recovering the client's losses, including through engagement with the suspect's legal counsel. The goal is to restore the lives of the client and his family, who have suffered immense financial and emotional hardship.

1. Case Overview a. Party represented by Barun Law: A state-owned energy corporation (Defendant) b. Background of the case: The plaintiff, a heat producer, entered into a "Sewage Heat Utilization District Heating Supply Project" implementation agreement with a local government and subsequently signed a heat supply contract with the defendant to supply heat energy and receive payment. c. Litigation Due to water quality issues, the plaintiff was unable to operate the facilities normally, resulting in a suspension of heat supply and failure to meet the standard heat supply volume. Consequently, the defendant deducted a portion of the heat payment in accordance with the contract. The plaintiff argued that the supply suspension was caused by a force majeure event as defined under the agreements and that, in such cases, both the obligation to supply heat and the application of the heat payment adjustment clause should be waived. The plaintiff thus claimed the full amount of the heat payment from the defendant. 2. Judgment Seoul Central District Court Decision No. 2023Gahap77007, dated March 21, 2025 (Plaintiff's claim dismissed in full). 3. Grounds for the Judgment While the court acknowledged that the suspension of heat supply was indeed due to a force majeure event, it ruled in favor of the defendant based on the following reasoning: 1. Under the heat supply contract, heat payments must still be adjusted (deducted) even if supply shortfalls result from force majeure. 2. The clause related to adjustment of standard heat trading volumes does not grant either party unilateral authority or obligation to adjust volumes. 3. Even though the project follows a BTO (Build-Transfer-Operate) model, the contents of the specific heat supply contract take precedence over the BTO standard agreement. Moreover, neither the standard BTO agreement nor the project's implementation agreement allocates all risk from force majeure to the government authority. 4. There was no fault attributable to the defendant or the supervisory authority regarding the force majeure incident. 5. The heat supply contract and implementation agreement do not impose all risk of force majeure events solely on the plaintiff. Accordingly, the court ruled that the heat payment should be adjusted (deducted) in proportion to the shortfall in heat supply. 4. Our Arguments and Role We systematically interpreted the heat supply contract, the implementation agreement, the project's risk allocation structure, and the pricing/payment mechanism. We convincingly argued that even in cases involving force majeure, the contract mandates payment adjustment proportional to the supply shortfall. The court accepted all of our arguments and dismissed the plaintiff's claim in its entirety. 5. Significance of the Judgment This ruling reaffirms that in BTO-type projects, the allocation of risk due to force majeure must be interpreted based on the specific implementation and contractual agreements. It serves as a valuable precedent for interpreting risk responsibilities between parties in similar infrastructure or energy-related projects involving force majeure events.

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.