Case Studies
[Criminal] A case involving criminal charges for copyright infringement where we secured a suspended sentence for the defendant.
Law firm Veat recently overturned a first-instance conviction of a fine in a copyright infringement criminal complaint case and secured a suspended sentence in the appellate court. B, who was working at A Company, founded T Company after retirement and posted the work he did during his employment as a portfolio. Upon learning this, A Company filed a criminal complaint against B for violating Article 136, paragraph 1, item 1 of the Copyright Act. Law firm Veat, acting on behalf of the defendant B, emphasized that ▲ the defendant did not realize that posting the work he did during his employment as his portfolio by the newly founded company was a crime due to a lack of criminal intent ▲ the posting period was very short ▲ he contributed to the creation of the work, appealing the first-instance fine sentence on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As a result, the court accepted Law firm Veat's unfair sentencing argument and, in accordance with Article 364, paragraph 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, overturned the guilty portion of the original verdict and issued a suspended sentence. If you need help with copyright infringement in civil or criminal matters, please contact Law firm Veat. Thank you. Law firm Veat
[202001] #NEWS 10 Law firm Veat’s 2019
Here's the translation of the text from the provided link, adhering to your specific instructions (translating "비트" to "Veat", Law firm Veat for "법무법인 비트", preserving HTML tags, and without any markdown): Law firm Veat Law firm Veat About Law firm Veat Law firm Veat is a full-service law firm specializing in corporate law, litigation, and intellectual property law. We provide our clients with innovative and effective legal solutions. Our Services Corporate Law Litigation Intellectual Property Law Contact Us Email: contact@lawfirmveat.com Phone: 02-123-4567 © 2023 Law firm Veat
[Corporate Bankruptcy Order] Proceeding with corporate bankruptcy procedures for A Company, which engages in pharmaceutical and cosmetic manufacturing.
Law firm Veat (hereinafter referred to as "Veat") proceeded with the corporate bankruptcy proceedings of A Company, which engages in the manufacturing of over-the-counter products and cosmetics. 1. Overview of Debtor A Company
[Consulting] Providing legal advice for drafting a business partnership agreement for startup company A. Law firm Veat
Law firm Veat provided consulting on the drafting of a business partnership agreement for Company A, which develops and operates applications. Company A is developing and operating an application providing dining-related services. Mr. J, the CEO of Company A, reviewed the business partnership agreement with co-founder Mr. K to ensure it did not violate laws such as the Commercial Code. Accordingly, Law firm Veat added provisions to the business partnership agreement, including ▲ clauses specifying the rights and obligations regarding the sale of equity shares ▲ a non-competition obligation clause ▲ a clause regarding penalties in the event of a breach of contract. Startups often begin with close acquaintances, so a 'business partnership agreement' may be an uncomfortable process, but having a business partnership agreement that specifically outlines the rights and obligations of the partners in advance can greatly help prevent disputes related to future company operations. Law firm Veat is providing practical assistance to various startup companies, centered around Chief Representative Attorney Choi Seong-ho, Partner Attorney Song Do-young, and Attorney An Il-woon, who are active as ICT startup legal mentors for the Ministry of Science and ICT. Those who need help with drafting a business partnership agreement are welcome to contact Law firm Veat. Thank you. From Law firm Veat
[Victory] Law firm Veat wins a maintenance fee claim lawsuit representing a SW wholesale plaintiff.
Law firm Veat (hereinafter 'Veat') obtained a victory for the plaintiff in a case where A Co. (plaintiff), operating a SW wholesale business, filed a ‘claim for unpaid maintenance fees’ against B Co. (defendant), which operates a program development and maintenance business, in relation to a data management program (hereinafter 'C Program') maintenance contract concluded between them. 1. Overview of the Case A. Plaintiff's Filing of a Main Claim for Maintenance Fee A Co. (hereinafter 'plaintiff') and B Co. (hereinafter 'defendant') entered into a contract to perform installation and maintenance for two years regarding C Program, and the plaintiff performed all maintenance work for C Program for two years according to the contract. However, the defendant failed to pay the service fees for November and December 2015, and also failed to pay the fees for additional service work carried out in conjunction with this contract. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming costs incurred for two pieces of service work and delayed damages against the defendant. B. Defendant's Filing of a Counterclaim for Damages In response, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff had entered into a contract by falsely representing itself as a partner of the C Program manufacturer when it was not, and thus failed to receive appropriate program upgrades, and filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff seeking damages for breach of contract and delayed damages. 2. Review of the Issues Accordingly, Law firm Veat carefully examined the scope of installation and maintenance of C Program, which is the content of the contract, focusing on the contract signed between the plaintiff and the defendant. It was primarily examined whether ▲the contract included a provision that the plaintiff should be registered as a partner of the C Program manufacturer, and ▲whether the scope of maintenance included updates or upgrades of C Program. Veat comprehensively reviewed the wording of the contract document, industry practices related to maintenance work, and similar precedents, and concluded that the defendant’s claim was unfair, focusing on the purpose of this contract, 'maintaining C Program in a good condition through preventive maintenance and maintenance when failures occur'. That is, ▲the content of this contract is closer to 'pure technical support work' and is different in nature from 'renewal work' ▲the defendant was notified and allowed to choose whether to include the cost of the work when including update work ▲it is difficult to recognize that the wording of the contract inherently includes a large-scale update or upgrade in order to maintain a good condition ▲there is no evidence to recognize that 'renewal work' was performed during the contract period, and C Program was not maintained in a good condition or failures occurred ▲there was no objection to the condition of C Program during the contract period ▲there is no evidence to recognize that the plaintiff deceived the defendant into entering into this contract by representing itself as a partner of the C Program manufacturer. It argued and proved these points. 3. Conclusion and Implications The Central District Court of Seoul accepted all the facts argued by Veat and simultaneously rejected the defendant’s counterclaim, ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the full amount of unpaid fees and delayed damages, resulting in a complete victory for the plaintiff. With the advent of the big data era, new businesses are emerging to manage companies’ data, servers, and programs related to them. Various data management programs are appearing, and business contracts related to installation, operation, maintenance, and upkeep of these programs are also increasing. However, due to the volume and complexity of data and the ambiguity of the scope of work, it is difficult to prove fault in litigation. This case is evaluated as a representative study case for IT companies to review precautions and setting of the scope of work when concluding data management work contracts. Law firm Veat is composed of IT specialized lawyers selected by the bar association and lawyers with engineering backgrounds, and provides professional legal services for IT-related disputes based on extensive experience in software-related litigation. Please contact Law firm Veat if you are preparing for an IT law-related lawsuit. Thank you. Law firm Veat
[Legal Times] Veat, Enters Top Tier in TMT League Table
Law firm Veat was introduced as a prominent law firm in Legal Times’s ‘2019 Corporate Legal Market’ wrap-up article of the TMT (Technology & Media & Telecom) league table.
[Consulting] Law firm Veat provides legal advice on application terms of service and privacy policy for IT startup company A.
Law firm Veat provided legal advice to Company A, which operates an applied software development and supply business, regarding terms of service, privacy policy, and so on. Startup A, which operates an applied software development and supply business, requested legal advice from Law firm Veat regarding all aspects of a new service as it launched and intended to operate related applications. Accordingly, Law firm Veat reviewed Company A’s business plan and provided legal advice so that Company A could secure appropriate terms of service and a privacy policy based on related laws such as the “Act on the Regulation of Standard Contract Terms,” the “Act on the Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection,” and the “Personal Information Protection Act.” Based on its experience providing legal advice to numerous startup companies, Law firm Veat provides professional advice on all aspects of a service. If you need legal advice regarding the drafting and review of application terms of service and privacy policies, please contact Law firm Veat. Thank you. Thank you. From Law firm Veat
[Consulting] Law firm Veat provides legal consulting for new business of mobility startup A.
Law firm Veat provided legal & regulatory review and improvement consulting regarding mobility startup A’s new business. A’s new service was subject to various laws, but lacked specific regulatory laws, causing business operators, investors, and users alike to question the legality of the service. A sought advice from Law firm Veat to review for any legal issues. Furthermore, they inquired whether there were improvement measures if problems existed. Law firm Veat provided a consulting document containing information on understanding relevant laws and regulations and the stance of the supervising agency, methods for A to immediately provide the service, parts requiring regulatory improvement, and appropriate improvement measures, enabling them to assist in A’s successful service launch. Thank you. From Law firm Veat
[News] 2020 Regulatory Innovation Forum, Law firm Veat Partner Attorney Songdo Young to Attend as Panelist
The National Policy Coordination Commission, the Korea Economic and Social Research Institute, and the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry hosted, and the Korea Institute of Public Administration organized, “2020 Regulatory Innovation Forum - 1 Year of Korean-Style Regulatory Sandbox Implementation, Achievements and Future Tasks” was held on 2020. 1. 9 (Thu) at the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry International Conference Hall (B2F). This forum addressed the achievements and future operation tasks to commemorate the 1st anniversary of the Korean-style regulatory sandbox implementation, and various opinions were presented by policy officials, academic experts, related private companies, and various sectors. Attorney Song Do-young of Law firm Veat, who participated as a comprehensive discussion panelist at this forum, presented on the status of the regulatory sandbox in the domestic field and legal issues regarding the government’s regulatory policy, based on various advisory activities over the past year. With the advent of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the development of digital technology is rapidly changing the overall living environment. The introduction of the regulatory sandbox has breathed a wind of innovation, allowing various new businesses that were difficult to proceed due to regulations to be given a launch opportunity. Law firm Veat is providing professional advice on the regulatory sandbox, centered on partners Attorneys Song Do-young, Baek Seung-cheol, and Jo Eun-byeol. Business owners considering applying for the regulatory sandbox should contact Law firm Veat. Thank you. From Law firm Veat
[Victory] We won a lawsuit representing B, a company engaged in real estate consulting, seeking an injunction against copyright infringement and other relief. Law firm Veat
Law firm Veat (hereinafter referred to as "Veat") won a victory on behalf of Company B in a case where Company C, engaged in real estate consulting, filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction against copyright infringement, etc., against Company B for phrases used in real estate listings advertisements by a company engaged in the same business. 1. Overview of the Case Companies C (plaintiff) and B (defendant) are companies engaged in real estate consulting, collecting real estate information, advertising and promoting it to facilitate sales contracts, and operating respective internet websites and mobile applications. Company B used advertising phrases regarding real estate listings on its website and mobile application, and Company C alleged that B's advertising phrases infringed on its copyright, and filed a lawsuit against B seeking an injunction against copyright infringement and damages. 2. Judgment Regarding Copyright Infringement Claim Company C claimed that Company B infringed its copyright by unauthorizedly using and posting C's advertising phrases. In order for copyright infringement to be recognized, it is first necessary to determine whether the advertising phrase in question is a work. Veat focused on Article 2(1) of the Copyright Act. → A work is defined as a creation that expresses human thoughts or feelings and requires creativity. Although it does not require complete originality, creativity must at least require that a work is not simply imitating someone else's work and must contain the author’s own original expression regarding thoughts or feelings. Thus, expressions that are so alike or similar that anyone could produce them, or expressions in which the creative personality of the author of the work does not appear, cannot be considered creative. Veat sought a solution by focusing on the protected interest under Article 2, which is creativity. It emphasized that the advertising phrases of Company B in question were for briefly describing characteristics to convey information about real estate listings, ▲ commonly found in advertisements for other real estate listings, ▲ were expressions of simple facts, and ▲ were general expressions such that it would be difficult to conceive of other expressions. Therefore, it was clarified that Company C's creative personality could not be seen in Company B's advertising phrases, and thus did not qualify as a work subject to copyright protection. 3. Conclusion The Seoul Central District Court accepted all the facts argued by Veat and rendered a judgment dismissing Company C's claim entirely on November 29, 2019. Advertising real estate through online channels is a main marketing business for real estate consulting companies, and Veat achieved a great victory in copyright infringement disputes between companies in the same industry, which can be more sensitive and important. This was a significant decision, as it could have resulted in monetary compensation that would have burdened the small company B, and it is expected to be a good precedent for the copyright infringement judgment criteria for advertising and marketing in general.