Case Studies
"Small print regarding personal information provision, can you be penalized?"
Article 59 of the “Act on the Protection of Personal Information” stipulates acts prohibited of those who process or processed personal information. Article 59(1) stipulates that acts of acquiring personal information or receiving consent for processing through false or other unfair means are prohibited. If those who process or processed personal information violate these prohibitions, they violate the Act on the Protection of Personal Information and may be sentenced to imprisonment of up to three years or a fine of up to 30 million won. The Supreme Court has stated that considering the legal nature of the data subject’s right to self-determination of personal information, the legislative purpose of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information, the principles of personal information protection under the Act on the Protection of Personal Information, and the content of obligations that personal information processors must comply with when processing personal information, the ‘false or other unfair means’. As such, when determining whether the “Act on the Protection of Personal Information” has been violated, it does not only separately and individually judge the act of acquiring personal information or receiving consent for processing but considers the illegality comprehensively, taking into account the entire process of obtaining consent. The “Act on the Protection of Personal Information Enforcement Rule” newly established in 2017, Article 4, stipulates the method of displaying important contents when obtaining written consent. 1. The font size shall be at least 9 points or more and 20 percent or more larger than other contents to make it easy to see. 2. The color, boldness or underlining of the font shall be used to clearly indicate the content. 3. When the consent items are numerous and the important contents are difficult to distinguish clearly, the important contents shall be displayed separately from other contents to allow them to be easily identified.
[Lawtok News] An Il-wun Attorney Interview Regarding Personal Information Loss and Leak Case
Veat’s partner lawyer, An Il-oon, recently conducted an interview regarding legal responsibility concerning the recent personal information loss and leakage incident. An Il-oon lawyer stated that, “If the center had not routinely performed personal information safety measures, they could have faced criminal prosecution.” The “Personal Information Protection Act” stipulates that individuals who violate safety measures and fail to take necessary actions to ensure personal information security can be sentenced to imprisonment for up to 2 years or a fine of up to 20 million won. (Article 29, Article 73 of the “Personal Information Protection Act”) Furthermore, personal information processors are required to promptly inform the relevant individuals whose personal information has been leaked of the items leaked, the time of leakage, and the circumstances surrounding it, and those who fail to do so can be subject to a fine of up to 30 million won. (Article 34, Article 75, Paragraph 2, Item 8 of the “Personal Information Protection Act”) An Il-oon lawyer’s detailed interview regarding the related case can be found here. Thank you.
Does it violate the Personal Information Protection Act if I don’t directly receive personal information from a data controller?
Article 59 of the “Act on the Protection of Personal Information” stipulates acts prohibited of those who process or processed personal information. According to Article 59(2), acts of divulging personal information obtained in the course of work or providing it to others without authorization are prohibited. If those who process or processed personal information violate these prohibitions, they violate the Act on the Protection of Personal Information. Then, what about those who receive personal information from those who process or processed personal information? Those who receive personal information are also liable for violation of the “Act on the Protection of Personal Information.” Article 71(5) of the “Act on the Protection of Personal Information” ‘those who divulge personal information obtained in the course of work in violation of Article 59(2) or provide it to others without authorization, and those who receive personal information knowing the circumstances for profit or unfair purposes’
[Column] What happens if you create NFTs of other registered trademarks or registered designs, famous trademarks?
Can minting NFTs after copying trademarks or designs, or famous trademarks, be allowed? Andy Warhol, an iconic pop artist, became famous by creating works based on ‘Campbell’ Soup Cans, and the Warhol artworks often include the trademark ‘Campbell’. So, is it permissible to create works based on someone else's trademarks without their permission? If such works are minted and created as NFTs for sale, would that be acceptable? A key element to consider is that many logos and symbols, motifs, phrases, or even the appearance of products like the Olympic rings are registered trademarks. For example, the Coca-Cola bottle shape is a globally recognized form, so minting content based on this shape could lead to trademark infringement or copyright violations, such as Chanel, Louis Vuitton, Burberry, or Daks logos. However, it is important to note that trademark infringement only occurs if the use of the trademark is ‘specifieical use’ – that is, if it is used to indicate the origin of the product (the manufacturer). What is ‘specifieical use’? The core function of a trademark is ‘source indication’. That is, a trademark's primary function is to indicate the origin of a product – who manufactures it. For example, the trademark ‘Poca Chips’ for ‘Chip’s Snacks’ is owned by Orion. Therefore, when ‘Poca Chips’ is used on a potato snack product, it indicates the manufacturer, Orion. If Orion didn’t produce potato snacks but used the ‘Poca Chips’ trademark, that would be a misuse of the trademark and constitute infringement. This is when trademark infringement occurs. Using a trademark to indicate the origin (manufacturer) is ‘specifieical use’, and any misuse of it is trademark infringement. What happens if you use a trademark without ‘specifieical use’? Let’s consider a scenario: A publishing company, A, holds the trademark ‘Campbell’ Soup. If A is not affiliated with the company, another publishing company, B, publishes a book titled ‘Campbell My Best’. If B uses the ‘Campbell’ trademark, it would be trademark infringement because it could mislead consumers into believing that the book was produced by A. However, if B uses ‘Campbell’ in the title of its book to describe its content – that is, to explain that the book is about ‘Campbell’ techniques – it would not be trademark infringement. Using ‘Campbell’ in this way does not indicate the origin of the book; it simply describes the book’s content. Similarly, the name ‘Linux’ is trademarked by a publishing company, A, for its book series. If A has no relationship with another company, B, publishes a book titled ‘Linux My Best’, B would not be infringing on A’s trademark. This type of situation occurs frequently. Therefore, when minting content and listing it on NFT marketplaces, if the metadata uses someone else’s trademark, but this use is not for indicating origin, but for accurately describing the content, it can avoid trademark infringement liability. However, it is important to pay attention to situations where there is no confusion of origin. This will be discussed in the next installment. Thank you. Attorney Mr. Seungjong Oh, Legal Counsel, Law Firm Veat.
Law firm Veat, recognized as a Top-Tier firm in the LegalTimes TMT·M&A field.
Law firm Veat was selected as the TMT and M&A league table by Legal Times, a legal professional magazine. Legal Times selects law firms active in each field annually and publishes them through league tables. In 2021, Legal Times, in relation to the TMT sector, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its advancement to an untact industry, observed a dramatic growth trend in related TMT industries and focused on the fact that Law firm Veat was standing out in the startup market, including IT companies, as a boutique law firm. Specifically, Law firm Veat provides legal advisory services based on a high understanding of new business related to metaverse and NFT. Recently, it has been enhancing its expertise by conducting specialized legal due diligence in the blockchain and virtual asset business division during NCSoft’s acquisition of Ithem Games. Furthermore, Legal Times cited the increasing trend of global M&A transactions, which are rapidly increasing, and referenced Bloomberg’s 2021 statistics as an example. Law firm Veat ranked 4th in Bloomberg’s 2021 annual league table based on the total transaction volume. For those who are interested in more detailed Legal Times articles, please refer to the link below. - [Legal Times Special Coverage] 2021 TMT League Table - Legal Times (legaltimes.co.kr) - [Legal Times Special Coverage] Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, Korean legal market continues to expand - Legal Times (legaltimes.co.kr) Thank you.
[Lecture] Senior Partner Attorney Seo Seungjong, "Law Firm Veat" education program – Journalist School & Media School, 27th Issue of Professor Shinmun
Veat attorney Oh Sejong has conducted a special lecture within the 27th Journalist School · Media School education program, which was hosted by Kookje Shinmun. The special lecture targeted university journalism students who are enrolled in their first and second years of college, and Oh Sejong attorney delivered a lecture on ‘Understanding the Basics of Media Copyright’. Oh Sejong attorney began his judicial career after passing the 26th Judicial Examination in 1987 and starting his career as a judge at the Seoul Central District Court. He subsequently served as a judge at the Eastern Branch of the Seoul Central District Court, Gangneung Branch of the Cheonan District Court, Northern Branch of the Seoul Central District Court, and finally as a judge at the Seoul Central District Court. In 1997, he served as a professor at the Judicial Training Center specializing in patents, trademarks, copyright laws, and other related fields. Furthermore, he has been actively involved in various practical matters related to copyright, including serving as a member of the Copyright Review and Adjustment Committee, a specialist advisor to the Broadcasting Communication Committee, chairman of the Korean Copyright Committee, and president of the Korean Copyright Law Association. Thank you. Law firm Veat
[Advisory] Veat F&C acquired a legal advisory service including conducting legal due diligence specializing in blockchain and virtual assets in the process of Itum Games' acquisition.
Law firm Veat undertook legal due diligence on the blockchain and virtual asset business of the target company in the M&A transaction where Netmarble F&C commissioned them to acquire Itum Games, and provided legal counsel for the drafting and review of the acquisition agreement, among other legal services. The legal due diligence performed by Law firm Veat in this M&A transaction, specifically concerning the target company’s blockchain and virtual asset business, is significant because it differed from the standard legal due diligence performed in M&A transactions, focusing on a deep dive into blockchain and virtual currency businesses. Blockchain and virtual asset legal due diligence typically includes legal due diligence on areas such as the following. Review of the securities nature and legal compliance of tokens or NFTs issued by the target company, and legal compliance of virtual asset-based projects. Review of the legal compliance of NFT issuance and liquidity platforms. Review of the legality of various types of DeFi (DeFi) projects and their operations (DEX operation, liquidity provision, staking, etc.). Law firm Veat has been performing various blockchain and virtual currency-related legal services since 2017, and is working together with the growth of leading domestic and international blockchain business leaders. In particular, based on accumulated experience and expertise, it provides assistance with blockchain and virtual asset legal due diligence, drafting customized M&A contracts for blockchain companies, and more. Law firm Veat will provide the most reasonable solutions to all those who need legal advice on blockchain and virtual currency. Thank you.
[전자신문 칼럼] Opportunity Zone Metaverse, Needs Institutional Support to Follow Up
Veat partner lawyer Songdo-yeong of Law Firm Veat contributed a column on the metaverse through the Electronic Newspaper. For more details, please refer to the column content at Electronic Newspaper [ET Stage] Opportunity Zone Metaverse, Needs Subsequent Regulatory Support. The COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally changed our lives. The way we work has changed, and interpersonal relationships and activity areas have rapidly decreased. However, alongside the demand for remote environments sparked by COVID-19, the metaverse will positively change our lives. Metaverse services can change the essence of things around us and significantly improve productivity. Recently, numerous devices and services related to the metaverse have appeared. However, given that there are still many aspects that need to be overcome technologically and physically, it is expected to take a considerable amount of time to fully experience the metaverse. When the metaverse becomes active, issues such as the application of the Game Act, Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), and a variety of legal and institutional issues including copyright, personal information protection, and new types of crimes will arise. In principle, most of these issues can be applied to the laws and regulations of the real world. However, issues that may arise specifically because it is the metaverse, issues where damage increases or disputes occur frequently, especially issues for activating the metaverse, require discussion from the beginning. Electronic Newspaper [ET Stage] Opportunity Zone Metaverse Column, Needs Subsequent Regulatory Support. Veat’s lawyers, with their background in science and technology and practical experience, understand both ‘IT/Technology’ and ‘Law’ simultaneously, allowing them to quickly and accurately identify client needs and perform business advisory/legal counsel services based on those needs. If you are an IT technology-based startup or need legal review related to the metaverse, please contact Law Firm Veat. Thank you. Law Firm Veat Regards.
[The Bell] 'Engineering School Graduate' CEO Choi Seong-ho Takes the Helm, Law Firm Veat Specializes in Startup and Venture Advisory
Law firm Veat was introduced as a rare case in which it provided advisory services in a transaction worth 1.5 billion KRW, among the top new law firms. Please refer to the article ‘Hidden Helper in Petfriends’ Sale – Law Firm Veat’ for detailed article content. It was revealed that Law firm Veat had provided advisory services as the seller’s advisor in the investment of IMM Private Equity and GS Retail in the Petfriends deal last year. This is considered a rare case where a new law firm is entrusted with advisory services in a transaction worth 1.5 billion KRW. Amidst participation of Law firm Sejong and Samuk PwC as the acquirer’s advisory firms, Law firm Veat drew attention for its role as the seller’s advisor. In 2020, the domestic M&A legal advisory market was dominated by six firms, including Kim & Chang Legal Services · Law Firm Gwangjang · Law Firm Taepyeongyang · Law Firm Sejong · Law Firm Yuwon · Law Firm Hwau, accounting for 70% of the market share. Law firm Veat is an IT and venture-focused law firm established in 2015 by Mr. Seongho Choi, a graduate of Seoul National University’s Computer Science Department. It has provided legal advice to approximately 786 companies, ranging from startups to unicorn companies. The Deal article. Law firm Veat has provided overall legal advice, including M&A Deal structure discussions and term sheet legal review, investment agreement drafting and review, and it successfully concluded a transaction worth 1.5 billion KRW, proving its expertise and reliability despite being a new law firm established for less than 10 years. Moving forward, Law firm Veat promises to continue providing legal advice to startups and IT technology-based companies based on its rich experience and skills. Thank you.
Law firm Veat - Consulting on the operation of establishing private investment associations.
Law firm Veat acted as an agent for client A who wished to establish a private investment pool and handled the establishment of the private investment pool business. A private investment pool is a combination formed by individuals and others primarily for the purpose of venture investment, as defined by the Venture Investment Promotion Act. The estimated duration of establishment is approximately 8 weeks. However, the establishment period may vary slightly depending on the volume of paperwork and the workload of the registration agencies. Following the request of client A who wished to establish a private investment pool, Law firm Veat proceeded with the establishment business and provided guidance on matters to be noted during the investment progress under the Venture Investment Promotion Act. If you are preparing to establish a private investment pool, please contact Law firm Veat. Thank you. Law firm Veat