Case Studies
[Law firm Veat V.A.R] Key Contents of the Revised Information and Communication Convergence Act
The Ministry of Science and ICT has been expanding the implementation of the "ICT Regulatory Sandbox" since January 17, 2019, and as of April 2025, it has granted exemptions to 185 experimental exemptions, 64 temporary permits, 24 proactive administrative measures, for a total of 273 cases, providing market entry opportunities to companies. Through this, 125 new technologies and services have been launched into the market, achieving 14.17 billion won in sales, attracting 20.03 billion won in investment, creating 6,648 new jobs, and achieving economic results, and 70 cases have been amended (56% of the 125 market launch cases), making formal business possible (as of December 2023). Despite these achievements, it has been pointed out that even if there was already an experimental exemption designation or temporary permit for similar cases, companies still had to go through the same formal procedure, which resulted in delays in exemption designations and unnecessary administrative expenditures. Accordingly, the Ministry of Science and ICT amended the "Act on Promotion of Information and Communication Technology and Convergence" to ▲establish a basis for prompt processing of experimental exemptions and temporary permits (Article 2, Paragraph 4 of Act and Article 2, Paragraph 4 of Act), ▲introduce a 'safe harbor' system to promote proactive administrative measures by regulatory officials (Article 2), and ▲establish a basis for awarding commendations and bonuses to those who have contributed to the revitalization of information and communication technology and related industries (Article 2). These revised items are the first amendment to the Regulatory Sandbox-related legislation and will take effect from March 23, 2025, ▲reducing the review period for similar cases by a significant amount* and simplifying procedures**, which will significantly reduce the burden on applicant companies and prevent unnecessary administrative waste, and ▲expanding opportunities to launch products and services directly into the market without experimentation through proactive administrative measures. * Review response period reduction: 30 days → 15 days ** Simplification of review and approval procedures: - (Existing) Review by the Preliminary Review Committee → Review and approval by the New Technology and Service Review Committee - (Revised) Only review and approval by the specialized committee to grant exemption For companies, if there is an experimental exemption or temporary permit for similar cases, they can more easily obtain an experimental exemption designation or temporary permit, so it is necessary to actively consider applying for the Regulatory Sandbox. Even in the case of similar cases, they may be eligible for experimental support if they meet certain requirements. If you have any questions about Regulatory Sandbox consultation and application, please contact the Regulatory Sandbox Consulting Team (Song Doyoung, Partner Attorney, doyoung.song@veat.kr, 02-576-8990). [Law firm Veat Regulatory Sandbox Consulting Team] Regulatory Sandbox Consulting Team Introduction: The 'Law firm Veat Regulatory Sandbox Consulting Team' has been conducting numerous government projects and corporate advisory services related to Regulatory Sandbox since the project discovery stage in 2018, for a total of 7 years. Law firm Veat has reviewed over 500 cases, the largest number in the country, through Regulatory Sandbox work related to ICT Regulatory Sandbox, industrial convergence/financial innovation/smart cities/regional special zones/mobility Regulatory Sandbox. Song Doyoung, Partner Attorney, received the 'Prime Minister's Commendation' in recognition of his contribution to the revitalization of the Regulatory Sandbox system, serves as a member of the Financial Innovation Review Committee, and Law firm Veat received an institutional commendation from the Minister of Science and ICT. Members: Song Doyoung, Partner Attorney, Baek Seungchul, Partner Attorney, Jo Eunbyeol, Partner Attorney, Jeon Yonghwan, Senior Attorney, Park Sohee, Senior Attorney, Song Jiyoung, Attorney, Kim Jisoo, Attorney, Lee Hyerim, Attorney, Han Hyungju, Attorney, Lee Hansong, Research Fellow
[IT Litigation] How should a software development contract be written? Setting milestones to reduce disputes.
As digital transformation accelerates, many companies are actively pursuing the development of in-house systems or the adoption of customized solutions to secure competitiveness. Consequently, many companies are entering into software service contracts, and disputes related to these contracts are also occurring. In particular, setting ‘development milestones’ goes beyond a simple schedule plan; it serves as a benchmark for contract management and the prevention of legal disputes. Therefore, a strategic approach is necessary from the contract drafting stage. The Concept and Role of Milestones Software development generally proceeds in stages over several months to years. The ‘milestone’ is introduced to manage this process efficiently. A milestone refers to the key performance points that must be achieved in each development stage. For example, ▲completion date of requirements analysis, ▲confirmation date of UI design, ▲delivery date of the first beta version, ▲completion date of final testing are typical milestones. These milestones are not merely scheduling tools but serve as a benchmark for verifying the progress of the deliverable and simultaneously as a measure for distinguishing responsibility for delays. Importance of Milestones and Key Check Items When Entering into a Contract In actual projects, the milestone schedule is often not followed due to the following reasons. First, delays may occur due to the client’s fault. A typical example is failing to provide materials on time or delays in internal decision-making leading to delayed feedback. Frequent changes to requirements are also a major cause of schedule delays. Second, delays can also occur due to development delays on the developer’s side. This includes cases where the developer failed to properly estimate the project schedule or encountered unexpected technical difficulties, resulting in a schedule slip. Since there are many cases where the cause of the delay is unclear, disputes arise over responsibility for the delivery delay. To prevent these disputes, it is important to specify the details of each milestone in the contract phase. It is advisable to ▲define specific completion criteria for each milestone ▲and stipulate the client’s cooperation obligations (material provision deadlines, feedback response deadlines, etc.). For example, you should set quantitative and specific conditions such as ‘First development completion is considered when the login function, bulletin board registration function, and administrator page access function are all implemented and the test results pass more than 90%.’ It is also possible to include a process such as ‘If a delay occurs, the developer shall notify in writing within 3 business days, and the client shall respond with an opinion within 5 business days after receiving the notice.’ to prepare for issues that may arise during development. Importance of Documenting Development History and Securing Evidence It is important to secure systematic records and evidence of the development process. If a project is delayed, each party is likely to claim that the responsibility lies with the other party. At this time, simple claims will not be convincing, and objective evidence is essential to show who made what request, when, and what materials were delivered when. For example, this could include email history proving that the client provided materials late, meeting minutes, or work logs, issue reports, or test result reports that the developer reported during development. These records are the most important evidence for proving fault in the event of a legal dispute. A software service contract is the legal and technical design result that determines the success or failure of the entire project. In particular, documenting milestone settings and implementation is a core mechanism for maintaining trust between the developer and the client, and a decisive criterion for clearly distinguishing responsibility in the event of future disputes. Law firm Veat has collaborated with numerous software development companies and IT startups, providing legal advice on projects such as startup platform development and public institution system construction. Based on this practical experience and technical understanding, we identify issues that may arise during development and systematically incorporate them into contract drafting and dispute resolution strategies. If you require legal advice or dispute resolution related to software contracts, please feel free to contact Law firm Veat. Thank you. Law firm Veat
Reseller Reporting? 3 Legal Responses to Black Resellers for E-commerce Companies
Law firm Veat received a request from e-commerce company A (hereinafter referred to as “the client”) to review measures to address multiple black resellers illegally registering and selling products produced and distributed in-house on unauthorized distribution channels. With the recent rapid growth of the e-commerce market, where anyone can easily sell and purchase products through online platforms, the issue of ‘Black Resellers’ who damage brand trust and disrupt revenue structures has become a major concern for companies. In particular, resellers who illegally resell self-produced or exclusively distributed products are operating through various online spaces, including open markets, used product platforms, and even overseas reverse direct purchase channels, threatening the company's legitimate distribution structure. Unlike simple parallel imports or used transactions, these reseller actions lead to consumer confusion, price distortion, and A/S confusion, directly infringing on the company's brand value and market order. Accordingly, e-commerce companies are increasingly needing legal measures against ‘black resellers disrupting legitimate distribution order’, and at the center of this is the “Act on Prevention of Unfair Competition and Protection of Business Secrets” (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Unfair Competition Prevention Act’). Black Resellers: How much is ‘illegal’? Simple ‘reselling’ itself is not inherently illegal, and general resale activities are not likely to be legally restricted if the genuineness of the product and the legality of the distribution route are recognized. However, the following cases may be deemed ‘black reselling’ and have a higher likelihood of illegality. - Unauthorized use of another’s achievements When a reseller copies and posts the client’s product photos, descriptions, and detail pages as they are, this can be assessed as the unlawful use of the client’s investment and efforts. The Unfair Competition Prevention Act explicitly prohibits such actions, and the illegality is even clearer if the reseller's actions are repetitive and organized. - Actions that cause confusion regarding the product’s origin When a black reseller uses names, logos, and descriptions similar to those of the official sales channels, consumers are likely to mistake it for an official product. This can be considered an unlawful act causing confusion regarding the product’s origin, and there are precedents where courts have recognized violations of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act in similar cases. - Actions that damage credit or divert demand When reselling at significantly lower prices than the official selling price or attaching excessive premiums, the company's normal distribution policies may be distorted, and brand trust may be damaged. In particular, when quality problems occur, consumers are likely to mistake this for the company’s fault, which can severely damage the brand image. 3 Measures for Black Reseller Response from Law firm Veat Law firm Veat has advised the client on feasible legal measures, along with an assessment of illegality, to respond to black resellers illegally reselling the client’s products. 1. Requesting a ban from online platforms This involves reporting and requesting deletion from open markets or e-commerce platforms where the black reseller is operating. Many platforms prohibit ‘infringement of trademarks or copyrights’ and ‘consumer deception’ in their own terms and conditions, and attaching relevant supporting data (product comparison images, consumer damage cases, etc.) can result in the deletion of posts or account suspension. 2. Sending warning letters and notices of rights infringement The second step is to send an official warning letter. If the reseller continues similar sales activities repeatedly or there is obvious illegality, a certified letter can be sent warning them of the responsibility for stopping sales and compensating for damages based on violations of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act and copyright infringement. This warning letter can be used as a preliminary step in subsequent civil or criminal lawsuits, and is also effective in making the black reseller aware of the legal risks. 3. Concurrent civil and criminal legal measures If sales continue even after the warning, more proactive legal measures are possible, such as ‘claims for injunction against unfair competition,’ ‘claims for damages,’ and ‘criminal charges for violation of the Copyright Act.’ In particular, actions that repeatedly infringe brand images and mislead consumers are increasingly being recognized by courts as acts of unfair competition, and the possibility of establishing a business obstruction charge against the reseller has also been considered. As e-commerce companies continue to grow rapidly, establishing a legitimate distribution order and preparing a brand protection system are essential. Uncontrolled proliferation of black resellers acts as a risk of undermining long-term trust, not just short-term profits. Law firm Veat provides practical and feasible customized legal advice to client companies facing black reseller issues, based on a high understanding and practical experience in e-commerce, intellectual property (IP), and platform technology. By comprehensively analyzing various laws such as the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, Copyright Act, and Trademark Act, we systematically support strategic measures such as online platform response, notices of rights infringement, and civil and criminal lawsuits, to protect products and brands from illegal distribution, and will continue to provide proactive and professional legal response to adapt to the changing market environment. If you need legal advice regarding black resellers and the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, please feel free to contact Law firm Veat. This case study can also be viewed on the Law firm Veat blog. - Legal Measures for E-commerce Companies Against Black Resellers 3 Ways
[Law firm Veat] In an era of data compliance risk, 5 specific strategies Korean companies should take
Law firm Veat published a column on personal information protection, cyber security, and practical response strategies for the health functional food industry on the startup-focused media platform Platum. This column introduces the 8 million euro fine for European REWE and the large-scale leakage case of US Piping Rock, pointing out that the data management status of Korean health functional food companies is still sloppy despite the existence of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). In particular, it specifically examines issues such as the legal structure that does not separately protect health data, lack of encryption, formal consent, delayed response, and lack of in-house expertise. Furthermore, it proposes five key response measures to escape the data swamp. It emphasizes the need to legalize health data as sensitive information, mandatory explicit consent, guaranteeing practical relief along with notification within 24 hours in the event of a data breach, and suggests specific implementation measures such as expanding DPO designation, executive education, and government support for security infrastructure investment, presenting the direction of legal and policy reform. [This link] allows you to view the specific content of this column. Law firm Veat possesses extensive experience and expertise in personal information protection and cyber security fields in industries that regard consumer data, such as health functional foods, distribution, and platforms, as core assets. In particular, it accurately understands the shortcomings of regulations surrounding health data and the technical limitations of companies, analyzes not only PIPA but also global regulations such as GDPR and CCPA, and provides practical and actionable advice throughout the entire process from data collection and usage to leakage response and sanction risk management, helping companies achieve trust-based sustainable growth. Law firm Veat Ju-hyeong, Head of Food Regulation Consulting Team is a doctor of law, concurrently a visiting professor at the Chung-Ang University Food Safety Regulation Science Department and former head of the Food Safety Information Center's Policy Research Office, and has served as a specialist in major government agencies such as the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the State Regulatory Office, and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. Holding US FSVP and PCHF-PCQI/FSPCA qualifications, he is a specialist well-versed in domestic and international food regulations and global export strategies, and provides advice on the entire food and healthcare industry at Law firm Veat. If you need legal risk management in complex data environments, such as the convergence of AI and healthcare, and the utilization of sensitive information, please feel free to contact Law firm Veat. Thank you. Sincerely, Law firm Veat
Three Key Elements of SaaS Service Contracts Based on Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Law firm Veat recently received a request from Company A (hereinafter "Client"), providing AI-based SaaS services, to draft a SaaS contract including an AI learning model. In the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, SaaS (Software as a Service) services leveraging AI and cloud-based technology are rapidly spreading across all industries. Particularly, industry-specific SaaS solutions go beyond simple software provision, encompassing real-time data analysis and prediction, automated decision-making functions, and deeply penetrating customers' business operations. However, as these sophisticated SaaS services become commercialized, the structure of SaaS contracts also requires a level of sophistication and legal stability to match. The Client provides AI-based SaaS services to efficiently manage assets such as bonds issued by financial institutions, and considering its core competitiveness lies in advanced AI analysis functions, Law firm Veat drafted a customized SaaS contract focusing on license scope setting, establishing information utilization consent structures for AI learning model operation, and prioritizing personal information protection. 3 Key Elements of an AI-based SaaS Service Contract 1. Clarification of SaaS Contract License Scope Unlike the traditional packaged software provision method, SaaS allows users to access and utilize services by connecting to a cloud server. Therefore, a different structure is required compared to traditional software license contracts, and it is particularly important to clearly define the 'scope of service provision' and 'limits of usage rights.' When providing AI-based SaaS services, it is important to clearly define the license scope in the contract. Specifying details such as geographic scope, exclusivity, permissibility of sub-licensing, and contract duration can prevent disputes in the future, and it is essential to specify geographic scope especially when considering global service provision. Additionally, the pricing method can also have various structures, such as usage-based, fixed fee, and feature-based pricing, so it is necessary to clearly define rate calculation criteria, overage fees, and refund conditions to ensure predictability and transparency. 2. Securing the Legitimacy of AI Learning Models and Data Utilization The Client's financial data is analyzed by the AI model, enabling more sophisticated asset management and risk prediction. The key issue was that the AI learning model provided by the company has a structure that collects and analyzes the Client's data. If this type of data utilization for AI learning purposes is carried out without separate legal consent, it may be unlawful. In particular, when dealing with sensitive or non-public information such as financial data, its scope of utilization must be based on clear contractual clauses to be considered legitimate. - Explicit consent for the utilization of client information for AI learning purposes When an AI model uses client data as learning material, an explicit and specific consent clause is necessary in the contract. If learning purpose, scope, method, and possibility of reuse are not clearly stated, the client may later claim data misuse. - Legal responsibility for data de-identification and protection measures Even if the information provided by the client is not personal information, it is likely to be sensitive data or corporate information, so data used for AI learning must be subject to mandatory protection measures such as de-identification, encryption, and access control. - Client’s right to consent and withdraw consent for data provision The client has the right to withdraw consent for data provision for AI learning purposes at any time, and the company should specify in the contract that the data should be deleted or removed from the model upon the client’s request, ensuring the client's control. These provisions guarantee the rights of the client, who is the data subject, and minimize the Client’s legal risks. 3. Review of SaaS Data Risks Involving Personal Information AI SaaS services generally input and process various unstructured data. When the Client provides services to the financial sector, the data uploaded may also include personal information of actual users or transaction parties. Therefore, Law firm Veat checked the scope of data collected, stored, and processed by the SaaS service and examined whether it meets the requirements for legally collecting and providing to third parties. When a SaaS service processes personal information, it is first necessary to determine whether the collected information falls under personal information, sensitive information, or unique identifiers on a case-by-case basis. If third-party services via external cloud infrastructure are included, the requirements for personal information processing outsourcing or third-party provision must be met, and it is important to specify this in the contract. In addition, it is necessary to concurrently establish a personal information protection policy and an internal management plan in accordance with relevant laws and regulations such as the Personal Information Protection Act to reduce practical risks. In the case of services linked to the financial sector, structures in which consumer information is indirectly utilized for AI learning may be highlighted as sensitive issues subject to regulatory interpretation, so it is essential to specify the level of data de-identification, responsibility of processing outsourcing parties, and inclusion of legal compliance items in the contract. Law firm Veat provided a practical contractual strategy that considers a balance between technological structure and legal risks, not just simple document drafting. It is essential for AI-based SaaS companies to consider technical development direction, customer data handling policies, and legal risk mitigation strategies from the initial stage of the contract. Law firm Veat provides comprehensive legal advice to technology-based industries across the board, including AI, cloud, and SaaS, based on a deep understanding of technology and abundant practical experience, enabling companies to gain market trust and achieve sustainable growth. It not only stops at drafting contracts but also designs customized SaaS contracts tailored to the AI learning structure and data flow, service operation method, performs precise risk analysis regarding the Personal Information Protection Act and cloud computing related laws, and comprehensively reviews knowledge property (IP) issues that may arise during AI model development and commercialization. Furthermore, it helps to achieve harmony between law and technology by providing strategic contractual structures that respond to regulatory environments in each industry such as finance, healthcare, and education. Law firm Veat specializes in implementing contract systems that combine both legal stability and business flexibility in an environment where technology is rapidly changing. If you need SaaS contract legal advice, please feel free to contact Law firm Veat. This case study can also be viewed on the Law firm Veat blog. - 3 Key Elements of an AI-based SaaS Service Contract Thank you. Law firm Veat
[Law firm Veat TIP] In the digital transmission era, a turning point in webcasting copyright classification
Law firm Veat TIP(Technology Intellectual Property) team wrote a column on ‘Digital Voice Transmission’ and video-included webcasting’s legal classification issues to startup-focused media platform Platum. As the format of digital content services has become more diverse, discussions on classification criteria under copyright law, such as ‘broadcasting,’ ‘transmission,’ ‘digital voice transmission,’ and ‘other public transmission,’ are more important than ever. In particular, in the case of webcasting services that include video, areas that are difficult to cover under the existing legal system are emerging, and it is a time when platform business operators and content providers both need sophisticated legal interpretation and response strategies. This column comprehensively analyzes related authoritative interpretations, precedents, and legislative trends, focusing on what type of transmission under copyright law is applicable to streaming services based on digital technology, and presents key points that practitioners at the intersection of the content industry and legal system should consider. You can check the full column by clicking the link above and the image at the top. This column provides practical information for planners, service operators, and copyright personnel of content platforms, Law firm Veat TIP team, specializing in intellectual property (IP), provides comprehensive and practical legal advice based on a deep understanding of the digital content industry, including legal classification review based on platform transmission methods and technical structure, assistance in negotiating with trust organizations, and establishing copyright dispute response strategies. If you need a legal review related to digital content services, please feel free to contact Law firm Veat. Thank you. Law firm Veat
[Copyright Lawyer] Exclusive Contract Design Strategy for Creators and Planning Companies
Law firm Veat received a request from an entertainment company (hereinafter referred to as "client") and performed the drafting of exclusive contracts between the client and a producer. The client was preparing to enter into exclusive contracts to secure talented producers to be responsible for album and music production for affiliated artists. At the same time, they wanted to clearly stipulate in the contract the ownership of copyrights for music produced by the producer and the method of profit distribution. If the producer performs work such as lyric writing, composing, and arrangement during the music production process, the resulting product may be a "joint work" under copyright law, and generally the rights are vested in the producer, the creator. However, it is also possible to transfer copyright property rights to the planning company through a contract or share only the right to profit distribution. Law firm Veat designed the contract structure focusing on three major issues. Collaboration with a producer: What should be included in the contract? Clarifying the scope of copyright assignment or license Whether to assign all copyright property rights of the creation written by the producer in the contract or to have the planning company have exclusive use rights within a certain range should be selected, and if assignment is made, it is desirable to clearly define 'specification of the creation', 'purpose and scope of use', 'period', and 'consideration'. 2. Specificity of profit distribution criteria Even when copyright has been assigned, it is common to design a structure that distributes a portion of the profits in recognition of the creator’s contribution. At this time, it is important to specifically state the settlement criteria and method for each profit-generating item such as streaming, downloads, and broadcasting use. Stipulating the distribution ratio, settlement period, and the right to review accounting records can reduce the possibility of disputes in practice. 3. Treatment of rights ownership upon contract termination Even after the contract ends, the relationship of ownership of copyright for previously created content can still be a legal issue. Therefore, it is necessary to clearly define how the rights and obligations between the planning company and the producer will continue after the termination of the contract. For example, it is necessary to specify the validity of the planning company’s right to continued use and the conditions for subsequent third-party use. Law firm Veat designed exclusive contracts and copyright profit distribution contracts to be concluded with affiliated producers, considering the client’s situation, focusing on core issues. By proceeding in this way, the collaboration structure with the producer was clarified, and the right relationship for the creation was reconciled in advance to prevent subsequent disputes. At the heart of the entertainment industry are creators. Among them, "producers," who hold the key to album planning and production, are core figures that determine the success or failure of the content industry. However, as collaboration between planning companies and producers increases, copyright disputes and profit allocation conflicts arising from unclear legal relationships also become frequent. Conflicts between planning companies and producers usually stem from unclear contracts. In particular, problems are often recognized only after profits have occurred, leading to protracted post-contract disputes or restrictions on content utilization. Therefore, an exclusive contract with a producer is not a simple employment contract but a complex legal document that deals with the assignment of copyright and the distribution of profits. In order for creative collaboration between planning companies and creators to continue smoothly, it is important to have the help of entertainment legal experts to design the structure of the exclusive contract so that the planning company can focus on content production stably and the producer can receive adequate compensation for their creative activities. Law firm Veat has experience advising on a large number of exclusive contracts, production contracts, license contracts, and copyright assignment contracts in various content industry sectors such as music, video, and performance, and provides legal advice that adequately reflects industry characteristics when drafting contracts so that they can be practically used in practice. Law firm Veat also operates a legal advisory team TIP team (Technology Intellectual Property team) specializing in copyright and intellectual property law, and proactively responds to legal issues arising in rapidly changing digital content environments. The TIP team has expertise in ▲copyright and intellectual property consulting, ▲service structure review, ▲license negotiation, ▲copyright protection strategy establishment and dispute resolution in new technology areas such as IT, software, NFT, metaverse, and games, and provides practical assistance through legal advice from experts who understand both technology and law. If you have any questions regarding exclusive contracts and other content-related contracts, please contact Law firm Veat. This case study can also be found on the Law firm Veat blog. - [Copyright Lawyer] Contract design strategy for creators and planning companies Thank you. Law firm Veat
[Law firm Veat TIP] In the digital transmission era, a turning point in webcasting copyright classification.
Law firm Veat TIP(Technology Intellectual Property) team has written a column on the legal classification issues of webcasting with ‘digital audio transmission’ and video for the startup-focused media platform Platum. As the format of digital content services has become more diverse, discussions about classification criteria under copyright law, such as ‘broadcasting’, ‘transmission’, ‘digital audio transmission’, ‘other public transmission’, are more important than ever. In particular, webcasting services that include video are creating areas that are difficult to incorporate within the existing legal system, making it a time when platform operators and content providers both need precise legal interpretations and response strategies. This column comprehensively analyzes relevant interpretations, precedents, and legislative trends, focusing on what type of transmission under copyright law is related to streaming services based on digital technology, and presents key issues that practitioners must consider at the intersection of the content industry and legal system. For more details, please click the [ link ] and the image above to view the full column. This column provides practical information to planners, service operators, and copyright specialists for content platforms, Law firm Veat TIP team, specializing in intellectual property (IP), provides comprehensive and practical legal advice based on a deep understanding of the digital content industry, including legal classification reviews based on the transmission method and technical structure of the platform, assistance with negotiations with trust organizations, and establishment of copyright dispute response strategies. If you need a legal review related to digital content services, please feel free to contact Law firm Veat. Thank you. Law firm Veat
Obligations of Communication Sales Intermediaries: Key Guidance Seen Through Fair Trade Commission Decisions
Recently, the Fair Trade Commission (hereinafter "FTC") has publicly disclosed through a press release its actions of issuing corrective orders and imposing fines on online platform companies providing used goods transaction platforms, accommodation brokerage services, and the like. The FTC has taken the above measures against actions failing to fulfill the obligations of a communication sales intermediary as stipulated in the "Act on Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce, etc." (hereinafter "Electronic Commerce Act"). With the emergence of various online business models, the legal status and responsibilities of communication sellers, communication sales intermediaries, and cybermall operators are becoming increasingly important. Particularly in a business environment centered around platforms, there are numerous cases where companies fail to properly recognize their legal status and overlook obligations under the Electronic Commerce Act.
[Criminal Record Inquiry] Is it okay to inquire about the criminal records of employees?
Law firm Veat recently received an inquiry from a manufacturing-based e-commerce startup (hereinafter referred to as the "Client") regarding whether it is permissible under the laws of the Republic of Korea to obtain criminal record data when hiring employees and executives of its subsidiaries. We have conducted a detailed legal review in response. Criminal record checks: You need to know how to do them. Obtaining criminal record checks is particularly sensitive information, and acquiring it arbitrarily may subject you to strict sanctions according to relevant laws. Accordingly, Law firm Veat first examined the applicability of the "Act on the Expiration of Punishment, etc." (hereinafter referred to as the "Expiration of Punishment Act"). According to Article 6(3) of the Expiration of Punishment Act, no one shall acquire criminal record data unless they have a legitimate reason based on laws. However, such acquisition is permissible in cases such as when necessary for criminal investigation or trial, when criminal record checks and reporting are expressly allowed under a specific law (e.g., there are criminal record check regulations under the "Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles"), etc. Act on the Expiration of Punishment, etc. Article 6(Restrictions on Criminal Record Checks, Investigation Record Checks, and Reporting, etc.) ① Criminal record checks and investigation record checks based on investigation data tables and related reports may be conducted, in whole or in part, only within the minimum scope necessary for the purpose of the investigation, in cases falling under any of the following: 1. When necessary for criminal investigation or trial 2. ~ 8. (Omitted) 9. When necessary to confirm disqualification reasons, disciplinary procedures for public officials, specific reasons for disciplinary actions (limited to criminal record checks and related reports), or limitations on payment of public officials' pension, as stipulated in other laws. 10. In cases where other laws stipulate that criminal record checks and investigation record checks and related reports should be conducted. ③ No one shall acquire criminal record data or investigation record data for the purpose of using it for purposes other than those specified in Article 1.