Case Studies
"Fund partnership agreement" Legal Review
S Company intended to form an investment fund (Fund) with the MOT fund and domestic and foreign investors (Limited Partner). Law firm Veat started reviewing the proposal related to fund formation and thoroughly reviewed parts that could be points of contention in the investment fund regulations. Furthermore, we helped S Company to create regulations that would allow it to have an independent decision-making structure as a General Partner. Furthermore, in the case of foreign investors, there was a need to confirm the investment fund regulations in an English version, and Law firm Veat was able to express the English version of the regulations with accurate English legal terminology, based on its abundant know-how, and as a result, several tens of billions of won worth of funds were smoothly formed. Law firm Veat is also planning to assist S Company in the process of investing using the aforementioned fund. Thank you. Law firm Veat
E Company patent-related unfair comparative advertising complaint representation
Company E previously handled patent-related disputes spanning three years due to Company OO infringing on its patents, but experienced difficulties such as the patent being declared invalid and losing the lawsuit. Subsequently, the opposing party also made false advertisements claiming the separate patent applied for and registered by E had low performance. In response, Law firm Veat represented Company E and reported Company OO for unfair comparative advertising, etc. to the Fair Trade Commission. After visiting the Fair Trade Commission investigators several times and providing detailed explanations about the patent technology, we demonstrated that the comparative advertising was unfair and successfully stopped the advertising. Thank you. Law firm Veat
Law firm Veat defense (acquittal) of violation of the Industrial Secret Protection Act regarding B
B decided to resign from OO Company and start his own business. After going through internal procedures, he resigned and established □□ Company, which he is currently operating. Subsequently, OO Company filed a lawsuit against B for violating the ‘Law on Prevention and Protection of Industrial Technology,’ initiating an investigation. The relevant technology is widely known in the field, and although it is difficult to view it as industrial technology under the Industrial Technology Law, OO Company had applied to the relevant ministry for designation as industrial technology just before filing the lawsuit, and it had been designated as such. OO Company claimed that it had incurred enormous human and material costs to develop the technology, submitting various experimental data. The situation was very unfavorable because it had been designated as industrial technology by the relevant ministry, but Law firm Veat discovered that the Industrial Technology Protection Law had been declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, and although some expressions had been amended since then, the unconstitutionality had not been eliminated, that the relevant technology was a common one widely used, and that a detailed review of the records submitted by OO Company showed that the data submitted by OO Company could not be considered related to the technology, and that the technology held by B was completely separate from the technology claimed by OO Company, and submitted this information in the form of a lawyer's opinion. Despite this, the police transferred B to the prosecutors’ office for violating the Industrial Technology Protection Law, and the prosecutors’ office also filed an indictment, but the court of first instance acquitted B on the grounds that, based on the relevant evidence, the technology held by B could not be viewed as the same as the technology for which the indictment was filed, and that verdict was upheld by the Supreme Court.
"B Bank Personal Information Protection Crisis Response Legal Consultation"
Regarding the company's operational policies, B and the labor union were in a sharp conflict when the union reported the company to the prosecution on suspicion of violating the Personal Information Protection Act. The allegations were that the company used or provided employee personal information beyond the content of the consent form for personal information processing at the time to a third party. As a result of investigating the facts, it was confirmed that the company had 'entrusted' employee personal information, which was not subject to criminal punishment under the Personal Information Protection Act and had a processing basis under the Special Act. We conveyed related opinions through a lawyer’s opinion letter and received a decision of no charges. (Tip) Personal information protection issues are becoming sensitive not only in the relationship between the company and its customers, but also between the company and the labor union, and actual disputes like this are occurring. Consent forms for the processing of personal information of employees are different in purpose and nature from customer consent forms, so using them directly may lead to future disputes, so preparation is necessary.
"Advisory services on drafting terms of service, privacy policies, etc. when providing overseas cloud services."
A domestic security company aimed to provide security services worldwide based on Amazon's AWS cloud services. Law firm Veat contributed to a successful service launch by writing and reviewing terms of service, service level agreements (SLAs), and privacy policies, comparing and analyzing the terms and conditions of overseas cloud service providers, in order to minimize the risks that could arise when operating such services.
B Company IT development subcontract dispute resolution.
We concluded the dispute by mutual agreement regarding disputes related to the completion of software service development and defect warranty. In this case, the opposing party requested excessive liquidated damages from the client IT company, which is relatively small, because the software development service was not completed within the deadline as stated in the contract. Law firm Veat concluded the dispute on favorable terms by mutual agreement, based on thorough fact-finding and analysis through emails and text messages exchanged between the client company, a subcontractor, and the principal party.
"Consultation on regulations regarding overseas cloud server storage of financial transaction information when outsourcing business to financial institutions"
The client company is a global IT company that intended to provide its cloud solutions to domestic financial companies. However, potential client companies could only outsource information processing to their headquarters, branches, and affiliates, so they considered that storing personal credit information on a cloud located abroad could violate current laws and regulations, putting the business at risk of failure. Law firm Veat, based on the outsourcing regulations under the Capital Market Act, the relationship between financial companies' information processing outsourcing regulations, related regulations such as the Credit Information Act and the Personal Information Protection Act, negotiated with the Financial Supervisory Service to present a plan for outsourcing that is possible, etc., and provided compliance advice regarding the overseas transfer of personal credit information.
"A card company personal information leakage crisis response"
A card company commissioned a large-scale project, and a PM belonging to one of the entrusted companies leaked a large amount of personal credit information. Immediately after identifying the facts through a prosecutor’s office search and seizure, A company established a crisis response situation room, and lawyers resided there, providing real-time responses. In addition to the prosecutor’s office investigation, lawyers also responded in real-time while residing in the company throughout the two-month investigation by the financial authorities. Documents submitted during the prosecutor’s office investigation and the financial authorities' investigation could adversely affect subsequent civil lawsuits, so they thoroughly reviewed apology statements to customers and various documents from a legal perspective to maximize efforts to minimize risks to the company. (Tip) As seen in recent rulings, courts consider ‘the company’s response immediately after the incident’ as an important factor when determining the amount of damages or whether to award damages. Also, the ‘Personal Information Protection Act,’ ‘Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Protection of Information,’ and ‘Act on the Use and Protection of Credit Information’ all introduce statutory damages and punitive damages systems, explicitly stipulating “the degree of relief efforts” as a mandatory consideration when calculating damages. Considering these points, it is necessary to prepare crisis response policies/guidelines/procedures with personal information protection crisis response experts, identify vulnerabilities through rehearsals, and in the event of an actual crisis such as a personal information leak, it has become more important than ever to respond quickly based on preparations made in advance. Thank you. Law firm Veat
"Lawsuit related to game copyright infringement filed by a global game company"
A global game company has received a ruling that it did not infringe copyright in a lawsuit filed against a domestic game company for copyright infringement and other issues. The global game company claimed copyright infringement based on the apparent feeling of similarity or the similarity of some expressions. In particular, the company made efforts to give the court the ‘feeling’ that the two games were similar through a video. In response, the defendant analyzed each individual scene, proving that the specific expression methods of the two games were different and widely used in other games. At the same time, it thoroughly analyzed existing domestic rulings and papers to support its argument. The court rejected all of the plaintiff's copyright infringement claims on the grounds that the expression methods of the two games were different or that they were expression methods already widely used in other games. This ruling has the significance of reconfirming the copyright infringement criteria for games in Korea's existing judgments. (Tip) Cases where foreign companies file lawsuits claiming copyright infringement are increasing, and the direct and indirect damages are substantial. Therefore, it is necessary to carefully review copyright infringement issues with a game copyright expert from the time of game production to prevent disputes in advance.
"Legal advisory for publishing contract between A Company and Chinese T Company"
T Company is a company that provides messenger services in China, and is known as an optimal partner for targeting the Chinese market. However, when entering into publishing contracts with Chinese companies, they often send draft versions in English, which are not particularly favorable to the developer. Law firm Veat, based on considerable know-how accumulated while reviewing publishing contracts, suggested guidelines for typical publishing contracts, and further assisted in completing the publishing contract in a direction favorable to Company A through negotiation, in order to provide a foundation for stably providing the game service. Thank you. Law firm Veat