IP Advisory and Litigation
[Intellectual Property] Barun Law helps a famous franchisor conclusively eliminate the risk of being under dispute with regard to its trademark, "Woori Halmae Tteokbokki"
1. Overview of the case
On November 11, 2019, Company W applied for a trademark with the restaurant franchise business as a designated service business (the "Trademark"). On January 19, 2021, it received registration for the Trademark. Meanwhile, Company J, without any awareness of the existence of the Trademark, opened its first franchise store using the trademark "Woori Halmae Tteokbokki" (the "Client's Trademark") in January 2020. Afterwards, Company J had approximately 350 franchisees as of 2023. In this situation, Company W filed a lawsuit against Company J in 2023, seeking a ban on the use of the Client’s Trademark and a large amount of compensation for damages on the grounds of infringement of its right to the Trademark.
2. Main issues of the case
The main issue is whether Company J infringed upon Company W's Trademark.
3. Our role
Representing Company J, we proved from various angles that there was no infringement of the Trademark. Specifically, we argued and substantiated: (1) the Client’s Trademark is not "similar" to the Trademark; (2) the exercise of the Trademark is an abuse of rights because there are grounds for invalidity of the Trademark; and (3) the Trademark does not have any effect on the Client’s Trademark. It was proven that Company J did not infringe on the Trademark in any way. In particular, we focused our efforts on explaining the dissimilarity between the Client’s Trademark and the Trademark, being based on a variety of arguments.
Whether or not trademarks are similar is a major issue in most trademark infringement lawsuits, and the legal principles on the issue are sufficiently accumulated. However, making a judgment on the issue in individual cases is never easy. In reality, there are different judgment on whether two identical comparative trademarks are similar. This demonstrates that it is difficult to determine the similarity of trademarks. In this case, Company W asserted similarity between the Client’s Trademark and the Trademark, using its own theory. However, Barun Law, which has experience successfully handling multiple trademark cases, proved that the two trademarks were not similar from a variety of perspectives.
4. Court decision
On January 19, 2024, the Seoul Central District Court accepted our argument and ruled that the Client’s Trademark was not similar to the Trademark for various reasons, and dismissed all the claims made by Company (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2023Gahap47495, dated January 19, 2024).
□ Attorneys in charge: Ko Young-han, Choi Jin-sook, Jung Young-hun
2024. 03. 05
Administrative Litigation
Private School Consulting
[Administration] Representing a disabled child attending an international school, Barun Law obtains a recommendation to correct the discriminatory act and a prosecution complaint against the principals of the international school from the Human Rights Commission
1. Overview of the case
1) Party represented by Barun Law : Barun Law filed a petition with the National Human Rights Commission on behalf of a 4-year-old disabled child attending Pre-Kindergarten 3 at S International School.
2) Background of the case : The victim is a child suffering from developmental disabilities. The victim child was having difficulty participating in class, such as running out of the classroom or not being able to get to the toilet on his own. He also had to leave early in the afternoon to receive treatment at an outside hospital. (1) The victim’s parents told the school that they would hire an assistant teacher (TA) at their own expense to control the child’s unexpected behaviors during class. (2) They also helped the child receive various hospital treatments to resolve the urinary problem and reported the child's improvement to the school in detail. (3) They explained to the school that an external treatment schedule was inevitable for the treatment of developmental disabilities. Nevertheless, S International School unilaterally refused to allow the child, who was on leave from school to deal with his disabilities, to return to school and forced the child to drop out.
3) Litigation : Barun Law, on behalf of the victim child, filed a petition with the National Human Rights Commission, to issue an order to correct their acts against S International School and its principals and to file a charge against the principals with the prosecutor’s office for violating the Anti-Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities Act and the Special Education Act.
2. Decision
On November 1, 2023, the National Human Rights Commission issued a recommendation to S International School to take a disciplinary action against the principals and to correct the alleged discriminatory acts, and filed a charge against the principals with the Prosecutor General.
3. Basis of the decision
The National Human Rights Commission found the acts of S International School unilaterally refusing to allow the victimized child to return to school and to be accompanied by an assistant teacher, who is essential for the victimized child’s school life, to be discriminatory without justifiable grounds. It was also judged that not allowing the child to have an assistant teacher is an act of discrimination under Article 4 of the Anti-Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities Act. Based on the findings, the National Human Rights Commission recommended S International School and its principals to correct their discriminatory practices, and took action to report the principals to the prosecution in accordance with the Anti-Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities Act and the Special Education Act.
4. Our argument and role
We classified the difficulties that the victim was experiencing into three categories (unusual behavior during class, toilet issue, and explained what solutions the parents of the child had proposed to the school to deal with the difficulties before the National Human Rights Commission. We pointed out that although the solutions and explanations presented by the victim child (e.g. employment of a TA at their own expense, hospital treatment, explanation of the inevitability of an external treatment schedule) were reasonable, the principals of S International School rejected all of them without any special grounds, and rejected the child’s return to school, forcing him to drop out of school. We organized all the vast amount of emails, consultations, and video conferences exchanged between the victim child and S International School and delivered them to the National Human Rights Commission. We made it clear that S International School principals committed acts of discrimination that cannot be justified.
5. Meaning of the decision
The decision of the National Human Rights Commission in this case confirms that schools may not restrict or exclude students with disabilities from participating in classes without reasonable grounds, and have obligations to actively seek and provide the means to provide necessary convenience to students with disabilities under the Anti-Discrimination Act and the Special Education Act. It is significant in that the decision once again emphasizes that, in principle, students with disabilities should be guaranteed the same rights to study and study as general students, and that schools have an affirmative obligation to guarantee the rights of students with disabilities. In particular, given that this case is involved by an international school, the decision is meaningful in that it confirms that since international schools constitute schools at all levels subject to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, they have the same obligation as domestic schools to guarantee the right to education and learning for students with disabilities.
□ Attorneys in charge: Park Ki-tai, Han Seung-yeob, Baik Ji-won
2024. 03. 05
Corporate Investigations & White Collar Defense
[Criminal] Barun Law helps the CEO of a listed company, who is sent to the prosecution for the breach of duty worth KRW15 billion, be clear of all the allegations through prosecutors’ supplementary investigation
1. Overview of the case Around 2021, the client, who was the CEO and major shareholder of a listed company, issued convertible bonds worth KRW 15 billion at the request of the buyers in the process of selling the company. The board of directors resolved to establish a pledge to a third party by the fifth business day after financial due diligence in order to temporary restrict the use of the payment for the convertible bonds. Afterwards, the client, who judged that there was a problem, stopped establishing the pledge. The company's employees made an incident report with a financial institution to prevent withdrawing and using KRW 15 billion, and granted withdrawal authority to Mr. A, as requested by the buyers. A, who became the CEO after the client left the company, pledged the money in his own name, then withdrew the money and used it for personal use. Some of the buyers filed a complaint against Mr. A for violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic (embezzlement) (the “Act”). During the investigation by the police, the prosecutor in charge of this case ordered the police to send the client, who was the CEO at the time relevant to the case, and one outside director to the prosecution on charges of breach of trust worth KRW 15 billion.
2. Decision Non-indictment
3. Our argument and role We thoroughly analyzed and organized factual information in an easy-to-understand chronological order, and provided it to the prosecution. And through face-to-face advocacy activities, we emphasized the following facts: (i) the client and the outside director had left the company and were completely unaware of Mr. A’s pledge and withdrawal; (ii) the client and the outside director resolved to establish a pledge at the board of directors meeting, but did not engage in execution of the resolution; (iii) the memorandum of understanding that included the establishment of pledge lost effect due to the cancellation of the agreement; (iv) the actual sale and purchase agreement does not contain any provisions regarding the establishment of a pledge; (v) the employees committed the same act as establishing a pledge by registering an accident, but it was not reported to the client, and the vice president, the client's son, instructed them to correct it, but the employees refused to following the instruction; (vi) the client cannot acknowledge intentional breach of trust as he has no personal relationship with the buyers and executed the sale and purchase agreement in compliance with due process, finding a buyer who can take responsibility for the perpetuation of the company and the livelihood of the employees; and (vii) the client was not sued and no one wanted criminal punishment against him. Even in a situation where the chief prosecutor and the senior chief prosecutor in charge of this case were replaced due to personnel changes, we persuasively conveyed the client's injustice to the prosecution through faithful face-to-face arguments and submission of a clear opinion.
4. Meaning of the decision Given the complexity of the case, the client was likely to be indicted because the case was sent to the prosecution with the opinion of indictment for violation of the Act (breach of duty) under the direction of the prosecutor who thought that only the client had profited from the sale of shares. By choosing Barun Law, which is well-versed in corporate crime matters, the client was able to avoid the risk of having to face an unfair trial by being cleared of charges by the prosecution even when the main criminals were indicted.
□ Attorneys in charge: Kim Jai-hyup, Cho Jae-bin, Lee Seo-in, Choi Young-su
2024. 03. 05
Construction & Real Estate
[Construction/Real Estate] A case where a resolution of a general meeting of families in a clan was invalidated on the ground that the obstruction of the exercise of voting rights constituted a significant procedural defect and the quorum was not met
1. Overview of the case
1) Party represented by Barun Law: A clan (as defendant in this case) claiming that the resolution of an extraordinary general meeting approving a purchase and sale agreement regarding land (the “Land”), the clan’s de facto sole property, was non-existent or invalid.
2) Background of the case
(1) The clan agreed to sell the Land owned by it to B company for KRW 85 billion, which is located in a place where a logistics complex is planned to be developed. Since the Land is virtually the only property of the clan and is located in an important location that is indispensable for the development of the logistics complex, several companies including Company B were trying to conclude a purchase and sale agreement for the Land with the clan. The members of the clan were sharply divided between those who were in favor of concluding the purchase and sale agreement with Company B (such as Mr. C, the former chairman) and those who were against (such as Mr. D, the current chairman).
(2) Mr. C, the former chairman of the clan, convened an extraordinary general meeting around October 2021, with the agenda of making a resolution to sell the Land to a company (“Company B”) despite the strong opposition of the members. A proxy form was attached to the convening notice so that voting rights could be exercised by proxy, and the proxy form stated that it could be submitted by “mail, fax, email, text message transmission, or individually delivered to the attending members and submitted to the reception desk of the extraordinary general meeting by the members themselves”. The opposing party applied to the court for a preliminary injunction to prevent the extraordinary general meeting from being held, but the court dismissed the application on the eve of the extraordinary general meeting.
(3) On the day of the extraordinary general meeting, in order to exercise the right to vote on the agenda of the case, voters were required to check whether they were members of the clan at the reception desk at the entrance to the venue, enter their names in the attendance register, and receive a ballot. In particular, if the voter was a proxy, they were required to present both the proxy's identification card and the executed proxy, and if they brought multiple proxies, they were required to go through the above verification procedure for each proxy. At that time, the ballot had to be filled in with (1) a mark for or against, (2) the voter's full name, and (3) the first six digits of the national identification number.
(4) Upon the opening of the extraordinary general meeting, a fight broke out between the proponents and opponents over the selection of the moderator, and the proponents blocked the entrance to the ballot box after the former chairman, Mr. C, declared the vote closed 52 minutes after the start of the vote. Even after the proponents blocked the entrance to the ballot box, some members put ballots into the ballot box, and when the opponents tried to put an envelope containing several proxies and ballots into the ballot box, the proponents blocked them, causing another fight. Finally, it was agreed that the envelope should be placed on top of the ballot box and the entire envelope should be wrapped with tape and attached to the ballot box.
(5) The day after the extraordinary general meeting, Mr. C conducted a counting of the votes due to the expiration of the time to borrow the venue. Mr. C declared that the resolution to sell the Land to Company B was passed, with 217 votes in favor, 56 votes against, and 16 invalid votes. At that time, 103 ballots and 57 proxies from the envelope attached to the ballot box with tape were not counted as valid votes and proxies.
(6) In January 2022, the opposing parties, including Mr. D, filed a lawsuit against the clan for confirmation of the non-existence (invalidity) of the extraordinary general meeting resolution, citing procedural and substantive defects in the extraordinary general meeting. Meanwhile, in March 2022, the clan elected Mr. D, who was an opponent of the above extraordinary general meeting resolution, as chairman, and turned around to oppose the sale and purchase agreement with Company B. Then, on Company B, which was concerned that the lawsuit would be terminated due to the clan’s confession, filed an application for participation of an independent party to confirm the validity of the extraordinary general meeting resolution on August 8, 2022.
3) Judgment of the court of first instance (Daejeon District Court, Cheonan Branch, Decisions 2022Gahap100014 and 2022Gahap102294, dated October 14, 2022) : The court of first instance dismissed the claims made by the opposing party on the grounds that (i) it could not find that the members’ exercise of voting rights was illegally obstructed since the former president of the clan, Mr. C had terminated the extraordinary meeting on the basis of his legitimate authority, (ii) it did not find that 160 ballots and proxies in total from the document envelope attached to the ballot box were valid since confirmation of the valid number of members validly present at the time of resolution at an extraordinary general meeting was ultimately made through the vote counting procedure, and (iii) considering that there were no other procedural defects of the extraordinary general meeting in this case, and confirmed that the resolution of the extraordinary general meeting was valid, accepting Company B’s claims.
2. Decision Daejeon High Court Decisions 2022Na15210 and 2022Na15227, dated February 1, 2024
3. Basis of the decision
1) The alleged obstruction of the exercise of voting rights by the members former chairman, Mr. C’s obstruction of the exercise of voting rights by the assenting members, including the former chairman Mr. C
Considering that (i) proxy voting is expected to take a considerable amount of time, and the opposing members brought a number of proxies; (ii) even though Mr. C never announced the exact voting end time in advance, he suddenly declared the end of the vote without checking whether any member failed to finish voting, and it was impossible for the other members to predict when the vote would end, (iii) the opposing party could not receive ballot papers for or the proxies brought by them; (iv) from before, there was a division between members who were opposed to this agenda item and those who were in favor; (v) even after the ballot box slot was blocked, some of the assenting party were able to put their filled-out ballots into the ballot box, while when the dissenting party tried to put their ballots or proxy letters that they could not insert into the ballot box, the assenting party blocked them again; (vi) it is necessary to be more careful in disposing of property with a significant value such as the Land; (vii) given the circumstances at the time, such as the remaining rental time, it appears that there was no urgent need for the asserting party to block the dissenting members from putting their ballots already filled out into the ballot box; and (viii) the number of proxies whose voting rights were prevented from being exercised was significant, so if they had been reflected in the vote count, the resolution result would have differed, the high court ruled that the assenting party’s act of preventing the dissenting from inserting their already-filled ballots into the ballot box constituted the obstruction of the fair voting or exercise of voting rights, and that it was a “significant defect” in the proceedings of the extraordinary general meeting in this case, and therefore, the extraordinary general meeting resolution in this case was invalid.
2) Quorum
The high court judged that it was reasonable to find that the resolution in this case was not passed for the following reasons:
(i) Pursuant to Article 73, Paragraph 2 and Article 75, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Act, with regard to 95 negative votes that were not cast, even though a power of attorney was submitted to the registration desk of the general meeting to receive a ballot paper and the holder thereof indicated whether the principal was for or against, since the voting right was exercised, the principal must be considered “present” at the extraordinary general meeting.
(ii) In the case of 57 unsubmitted proxies, in light of the assenting party’s act of obstruction and the method and procedure of proxy voting based on proxies, even though the opposing party did not submit the proxies to the registration staff, they possessed the proxies to submit them at the registration desk of the general meeting, which stemmed from their intention to exercise the voting rights. For example, even if the opposing party intentionally did not receive a ballot for an unsubmitted proxy, whether or not to vote depends entirely on the intention of the member, and not participating in the vote while at the general meeting venue is also a passive way of expressing one's intention. According to the rules of the clan, there is no provision that only members who has exercised voting rights are considered to be present. The ballots were attached to the ballot box in the premises of the general meeting before the closing of the general meeting. Considering the above, it was also reasonable to view that the principal was duly “present” at the extraordinary general meeting.
(iii) Among the unentered ballots, excluding the 95 negative votes, the remaining 8 ballots were accompanied by a legally prepared proxy and should be considered “present” at the extraordinary general meeting for the above reasons.
4. Our argument and role
The clan signed a sale and purchase agreement to sell the Land for KRW 170 billion to a company in March 2023 after it had received the district court decision. If the decision was confirmed, there was no choice but to sell the Land at a low price of KRW 85 billion. On behalf of the clan, we argued as follows:
(i) Those in favor, including the former chairman Mr. C, interfered with the exercise of voting rights by the members during the extraordinary general meeting.
(ii) If a person holding a proxy is present when the general meeting of an unincorporated association is resolved, the proxy must be considered present when calculating the quorum. Therefore, the 160 ballots and proxies from the document envelope attached to the ballot box must be considered as being present.
(iii) The resolution of the extraordinary general meeting at issue in this case because it does not have a majority.
5. Significance of the decision
The property of unincorporated associations such as the families of a clan, churches, etc. is required to be managed and disposed of only by resolution of a general meeting (pursuant to Article 276, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Act). The above decision is significant in that it confirms that the obstruction of the exercise of voting rights in such general meeting resolutions constitutes a serious procedural defect and it presents standards for calculating quorum when exercising voting rights by proxy.
□ Attorneys in charge: Lee Chul-gyu, Park Sung-ho, Son Ju-yeong
2024. 03. 05
Construction Litigation
Construction & Real Estate
[Civil] A case in which Barun Law obtains confirmation that a 10-year prescriptive period from the date of loss of possession applies to the person’s right to claim ownership transfer registration under the statute of limitations
1. Overview of the case
1) Who is the party represented by Barun Law? : We represented the plaintiff from the first trial to the final appellate trial.
2) Background of the case : The plaintiff completed the transfer of ownership registration for land and 1/2 of the building thereon located in Yeoksam-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul on September 30, 2002 on the basis of sale, and the remaining 1/2 share in the building on March 24, 2014 on the basis of gift. The defendants are those who completed the transfer of ownership registration on March 25, 2011 for each 1/2 share of the adjacent land (“Land”) and the building on the ground (“Building”) on the basis of sale. Some of the walls of the building owned by the defendants encroach on a portion of the land owned by the plaintiff (the “Disputed Portion”).
3) Litigation : The plaintiff filed a claim against the defendants for the removal of the wall, and the surrender of the Disputed Portion and the return of unjust profits resulting from the possession of the Disputed Portion. The defendants claimed that they had ownership of the Disputed Portion on the basis of the lapse of the prescriptive period since they had inherited possession of the Disputed Portion from the previous occupants.
2. Decision
The court of first instance accepted only part of the plaintiff's claims. In particular, the court ruled that the defendants have a legitimate right to occupy the Disputed Portion because the time for the defendants’ former occupier to claim for ownership transfer registration under the statute of limitations has not yet run out and the defendants are in a position to exercise it on its behalf.
On the other hand, the appellate court accepted all of the plaintiff's claims for wall removal and surrender of the Disputed Portion. The defendants filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, but the appeal was dismissed on January 11, 2024, and the appellate court decision was conclusively entered.
3. Basis of the decision
It is the same as below in Section 4.
4. Our argument and role
Our attorneys argued in the first trial that (i) since the defendants' former occupiers lost possession of the Land and the Building by selling them to the defendants on March 25, 2011, their right to claim registration of transfer of ownership based on the statute of limitations was expired on March 25, 2021 due to the lapse of 10-year prescriptive period from the date of loss of possession, and (ii) regarding the 1/2 share in the Disputed Portion, since the transfer of ownership was registered in favor of the plaintiff on March 26, 2014, after the lapse of the prescriptive period, the defendants cannot claim their ownership under the statute of limitations.
However, the trial court did not accept some of the above arguments. Accordingly, our attorneys immediately appealed the first trial ruling. We argued that since the Supreme Court's 98Da32175 en banc ruling, pronounced on March 18, 1999, concerns the “right to claim registration of transfer of ownership due to sale (real estate purchaser's right to register transfer of ownership due to sale)” and takes into heavy consideration of the nature of the sale as a paid transaction in which the sale price is paid and the need to protect the buyer and the need to prevent the return of rights to the seller, the Supreme Court’s ruling could not be cited in this case. Further, we argued that, according to the precedents that have not been abolished by the en banc ruling above and the trend of precedents concerning the right to claim registration of a person of which prescription has been perfected, it is clear that a right to claim registration is regarded as a claim with a ten-year prescriptive period. We pointed out that, in the extreme case of expanding and applying the Supreme Court's en banc ruling as in the first trial judgment, the right to claim ownership transfer registration by a person who has completed the prescription for possession will not be permanently extinguished even though the right has the nature of a claim, which is not fair and equal. The appellate court accepted our argument and upheld all of the plaintiff's requests for wall removal and delivery of the Disputed Portion.
5. Significance of the decision
In the Supreme Court's 98Da32175 en banc ruling, dated March 18, 1999, since the Supreme Court explained, “with regard to the exercise of a right to claim the registration of transfer, since the case where hee purchaser of real estate receives the real estate, uses and profits from it, and then disposes of the real estate to another person as part of a more active exercise of rights to the real estate is not different from the case where he continues to use and profit from the real estate on his own, the statute of limitations for the right to claim the registration of transfer does not proceed in the same way in either of the above cases”, there appear to have been cases where lower court precedents expanded and applied that interpretation to the right to claim ownership transfer registration by those who have completed the prescriptive period for acquisition.
However, as is clearly revealed through the dissenting opinions and supplementary opinions, the Supreme Court’s en banc ruling above is a result of the residual influence of the constructive Civil Act, and is intended to protect the right of previous purchasers of unregistered real estate to claim ownership transfer registration, not to protect the person who has acquired property by the lapse of a prescriptive period. Even in subsequent cases, there continued to be a problem of not clearly distinguishing between the purchaser's right to claim registration and the right to claim registration of the person acquiring property under a statute of limitations, but through this case, the exact meaning and scope of application of the Supreme Court's en banc decision are clarified, thereby resolving the confusion in lower court decisions.
□ Attorneys in charge: Son Heung-soo, Yoo Jeong-min
2024. 03. 05
[Criminal] Barun Law overturns the first trial ruling and obtains all acquittals for the defendant who was indicted on charges of bribery worth KRW 17.9 billion and breach of trust towards a local housing association
1. Overview of the case
The defendant, along with co-defendant Mr. A, decided to proceed with an urban development project in a region, using the private sector-led collective replotting method. Then, he secured the right to preferential purchase of the land used for apartment complexes. In order to proceed with the project, he was registered as a director of a urban development project association (who will be constructively deemed as a public official when criminal penalties are applied for crimes, such as bribery, under the Urban Development Act) and carried out the urban development project. In the meantime, the defendant negotiated with the representative of an agency, who had a plan to purchase the above-mentioned residential land and carry out a local housing association project, and agreed to transfer the right to conduct a collective residence construction project, including the right to preferential purchase of the land to the promotion committee of the local housing association for KRW17.92 billion. The defendant was paid KRW 7.02 billion (which was an amount received as part of the price for the transfer of the business right with co-defendant A) from the local housing association.
In this situation, the prosecution accused the defendant of specific economic crimes on the charge that the defendant, as a director of an urban development project association, accepted a bribe of KRW 7.02 billion with co-defendant A and caused that much property damage to the local housing association. He was indicted for violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic (bribery and the breach of duty) and the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds. The court of first instance found the defendant guilty on all counts and sentenced the defendant to five years in prison and a fine of KRW 7.1 billion and an additional fine of KRW 3.28 billion.
2. Our argument and role
In defending the defendant on appeal, we elaborated on the nature of the private urban development project and the need to secure reserved land in order to proceed with the apartment construction project, pointing out that the defendant was listed as a director of the urban development association only as a formality for the project, and that the defendant did not perform his duties as a director of the urban development association; the money received by the defendant was for the transfer of business rights and services, and not for any unfair or illegal benefit in exchange for his duties as a director of the urban development association; there is no provision in the Urban Development Act or other relevant regulations that prohibits or punishes the transfer of business rights held by private parties, and that such transactions are actually taking place; and the local housing association suffered no loss because it became able to promote the local housing association project only after it was transferred the business rights from the defendant. We sufficiently articulated the error of the trial court in convicting the defendant.
3. Appellate court’s decision
The appellate court largely accepted our arguments, ruling that (1) the money received by the defendant was received in exchange for the transfer of his position and the provision of services, and could not be considered a bribe in the sense of “unjust or unlawful benefit in exchange for a public official’s duties”. The court also ruled that the crime of bribery could not be established unless the money was considered a bribe, that the crime of breach of duty, which was premised that the local housing association suffered losses by paying the bribe, could not be established, and that the crime of concealment of criminal proceeds could not be established because the money was not criminal proceeds as long as the above money was not a bribe. The court reversed the first trial decision, which found the defendant guilty of all charges, and acquitted the defendant of all charges, and accordingly, the co-defendants A and B, who were charged with the defendant, were also acquitted of all charges, unlike the first trial decision.
4. Significance of the case
This case is significant in that it clarifies that the transfer of substantive business rights is permissible in urban development projects based on a sufficient understanding of the characteristics and overall progress of privately led collective exchange-based urban development projects as well as local housing association projects. This case is also meaningful in that it clarifies the meaning of job-relatedness and quid pro quo necessary to establish the crime of bribery, and the meaning of breach of duty and property damage necessary to establish the breach of duty.
□ Attorneys in charge: Lee Young-hee, Lee Won-keun, Baek Chang-won, Kim Young-seung, Kim So-yeon
2024. 03. 05