Case Studies
Game publishing contract review
Since the second half of 2016, mobile game B of Company A has been extremely popular. Uniquely, it was released with three entities: the developer in China, Company A, and a domestic publishing company, each taking on their respective roles. During this process, a complex contractual structure was formed, unlike typical game publishing, with various publishing agreements and service agreements being concluded between the companies. Law firm Veat, based on its extensive experience reviewing numerous publishing agreements and service agreements, reviewed the agreements with Company A as a party, examining whether there were any unfavorable aspects for Company A and whether there were any potential legal risks that could arise during game services. In particular, we adjusted the obligations of the parties to clarify the roles of Company A and the Chinese game developer, and ensured that these details were specified in the English publishing agreement. Thank you. Law firm Veat Dream
Foreigner's Stock Transfer Legality Review
One of the distinguishing features of the startup ecosystem compared to other industries is that investment and transactions, and employment by foreign entities (companies) and for foreign entities (companies) are very active. Even small startups can easily encounter foreign shareholders, foreign directors, and foreign investors. Law firm Veat helped ensure smooth transactions and investments with foreign shareholders by understanding and providing legal regulations related to stock trading with the foreign shareholders in the process of game developer company A receiving investment from foreign shareholders. Thank you. Law firm Veat dream
Legal due diligence and investment contract drafting
2016 was a period when many MCN (Multi Channel Network) related startups emerged, and investment attraction was very active, to the extent that it could be called the heyday of MCNs. Company A recruited creators providing beauty and fashion content, and was different from other MCNs as a professional agency facilitating content creation and distribution. Investors from Korea and China naturally gathered, and a 2.5 billion won investment attraction was decided. Law firm Veat conducted legal due diligence on Company A during the investment process, helping the investor accurately assess Company A's value, and drafted investment contracts, presenting transaction conditions that both Company A and the investor could be satisfied with. Ultimately, Company A successfully attracted investment and was able to accelerate its entry into the Chinese market and its cosmetics distribution business. Thank you. Law firm Veat
Entertainment agency IP utilization game development contract review
Entertainment agencies are generating significant revenue not only from their core business of artist discovery and management, but also through derivative works utilizing the IP of music and the portraits of their affiliated artists that they have created themselves. A prime example of this is games utilizing the IP of affiliated artists. Company A, while attempting to develop a game utilizing its own IP, encountered a game development company with superior capabilities. However, a question arose as to whether entering into a contract with this new game development company would violate the existing contract with the original developer. Law firm Veat, after analyzing the characteristics of the game software stipulated in the previous contract, conducted legal advice based on a deep understanding of contract law, confirming that the new game development contract did not violate the previous contract. Thank you. Law firm Veat dream
Review of countermeasures against keyword advertising using the trademark of others
2017.01 (Written) A Company, which has consistently grown by introducing fintech to the financial investment advisory area, discovered that some small, similar investment advisory firms were running portal search advertisements using the names of their services. The act of advertising using another’s trademark can be considered unfair competition as stipulated in Article 2, Subsection 1, items (a), (d), and (e) of the Act on Prevention of Unfair Competition and Protection of Trade Secrets. The requirements for violating item (a) include (1) trademarkability, (2) well-knownness, (3) identity or similarity, (4) use as a product or trademark, and (5) confusion. In the case of item (d), it applies even when the services using the product are different and there is no possibility of confusion, and the requirements of (1) the notoriety of the trademark, (2) identity or similarity of the mark, and (3) damage to distinctiveness or reputation must be met. Law firm Veat clarified that setting A Company’s trademark to appear in the search result screen through interpretation of laws and precedents violated the Act on Prevention of Unfair Competition and Protection of Trade Secrets, and proposed a plan to induce voluntary deletion of advertisements by sending a certified letter urging the companies to cease the illegal advertisements. Subsequently, the companies that had been exposing search advertisements using A Company’s trademark revised their ad copy and no longer utilized A Company’s trademark. Thank you. Law firm Veat
Game publishing contract review
A company, about to conclude a publishing contract for a newly developed game, came to Veat requesting a review of the publishing contract. Based on the experience of reviewing dozens of game publishing contracts, Veat has ample experience and answers as to what the most conflicting interests are between the game developer and the game publisher, and how to resolve those areas. In this publishing contract as well, Veat fully utilized its long-accumulated know-how, resulting in a contract that both the developer and the publisher could be satisfied with. Thank you. Law firm Veat Dream
Company's Application for Injunction Against Former Employee's Job Change
Engineer A had diligently worked in the IT solution development industry for special fields for a long time. This field was not very large, so A’s diligence quickly spread throughout the industry, and A, who was also proficient in English, received a job offer from a foreign company in the same industry with a higher salary while working at B Company. As A happily accepted the new job offer, B Company presented the “Non-Compete and Prohibition of Job Transfer Agreement” that A had signed upon joining, and claimed that A could not be employed by a company in the same industry for 2 years after leaving B Company, and filed a lawsuit for an injunction prohibiting job transfer. It was true that A had written an agreement not to work in the same industry for 2 years after leaving B Company when joining B Company, so A was in a disadvantageous situation in the lawsuit. Nevertheless, Veat, as A’s legal representative, argued by organizing evidence favorable to A. In particular, Veat argued that A had never acquired B Company’s core technology, and that the technology A had acquired while working at B Company after understanding IT technology for special fields was not B Company’s core technology. At the same time, Veat negotiated with B Company and presented a reasonable negotiation proposal that both parties could accept, so that B Company eventually withdrew the lawsuit against A. Thank you. Law firm Veat
Review of Terms and Conditions for Personal Radio Broadcasting Services
When a startup launches a new service, they often experience many difficulties in drafting terms and conditions and a privacy policy because there are no existing similar services. Company A, also a personal radio broadcasting platform, found it difficult to establish terms and conditions and a privacy policy. In particular, there was a difference from existing personal broadcasting platforms in terms of providing a feature that recommends radio broadcasts that users will like, utilizing user usage patterns and listening records. Law firm Veat applied the legal principles related to personal information protection, laws related to online purchases, and transfer of copyright to establish Company A's personal radio broadcasting platform’s terms and conditions and privacy protection policy. Thank you. Law firm Veat
Review of the legality of a business model selling stock investment information.
A company recognized the problem of the similar investment advisory industry, where numerous businesses provide stock investment information to individual stock investors, but it is difficult to verify the reliability of the information they provide. Accordingly, A company is preparing to launch a new type of online open market service for investment information to increase the reliability of investment information, and has requested advice on whether there are any conflicts with the complex financial legal system. Law firm Veat understood A company's service model and reviewed (1) responsibility as a communication seller or communication sales mediator under the Electronic Commerce Act, and (2) responsibility of investment advisors and similar investment advisors among financial investment businesses stipulated in the Capital Markets Act, and delivered advisory opinions on parts that should be revised for the service model to comply with relevant regulations. Creating a creative new business model while navigating complex financial regulations is not an easy task. Law firm Veat will always strive to provide legal advice that can eliminate legal risks by complying with the content of relevant laws while maintaining the innovative business model developed by the startup as much as possible. Thank you. Law firm Veat
P2P loan claims automatic investment function review of whether it constitutes investment management under the Capital Market Act
Startups often begin businesses that didn't previously exist. Consequently, the legal risks arising when entering a business can be greater than those in existing industries. Especially in next-generation financial industries such as Fintech, there are often no legal regulations or guidelines for the service. While the idea is certainly good from the company's perspective, they may worry about potentially being subject to administrative regulations after launching the service. Company A, which entered the Fintech market, consulted Law firm Veat to inquire whether their differentiated financial service might violate any relevant laws. Veat investigated the content of the Capital Market Act, financial laws and administrative rules, as well as the authoritative interpretations and inquiries from the Financial Supervisory Service and the Financial Services Commission, and prepared and delivered a legal opinion stating that A's new service is not currently prohibited by financial regulatory laws. Thank you. Law firm Veat