Maintaining a Presale Agreement by Establishing the Substance of Support for an Elderly Parent Under the Special-Supply Program1. Facts and Background A was selected under the special-supply program for applicants supporting elderly parents and paid the deposit and part of the interim payments. A's eligibility was later challenged on the ground that the support requirement had not been satisfied. A retained LK Partners LLC to assess the effects on subscription eligibility, potential criminal liability, and contractual status, and to organize the necessary evidence and procedures. 2. Key Legal Issues First, it was necessary to determine whether genuine support could be recognized even if the household composition formally appeared compliant. Second, the evidence capable of proving the actual support had to be identified. Third, the proper eligibility reference date had to be determined. Because the relevant circumstances may differ depending on whether the date is the resident-recruitment announcement, the application date, or the contract date, the applicable date must be confirmed first. 3. Work Performed and Outcome LK Partners LLC (i) secured medical and care records showing the need for support; (ii) organized evidence of living-expense payments, the actual care provided, and the frequency of visits; (iii) reconstructed changes in household composition chronologically; and (iv) prepared and submitted a written opinion based on the evidence. The substantive support relationship was recognized, A was found to satisfy the eligibility requirements, and the presale agreement remained in force. This case demonstrates that criminal proceedings and contractual-status issues may proceed separately in disputes involving improper housing subscriptions; facts and living or financial records should therefore be organized chronologically for each track. In many cases, the sufficiency and consistency of evidence showing the actual support relationship are more important than formal household structure alone.

Preserving Purchaser Status While Responding to an Investigation of a Suspected Sham Change of Residence and Possible Cancellation of the Supply Agreement1. Facts and Background A won a housing subscription and entered into a presale agreement, but investigators contacted A regarding a suspected Housing Act violation arising from the circumstances of A's change of address. A retained LK Partners LLC to assess the effects on subscription eligibility, potential criminal liability, and status under the presale agreement, and to organize the necessary evidence and response procedures. 2. Key Legal Issues First, it was necessary to determine whether A had actually resided at the new address. Second, the relationship between the eligibility reference date and A's actual living arrangements had to be assessed. Third, A had to prepare for possible cancellation of the supply agreement under Article 65(2) of the Housing Act, which may proceed separately from the criminal process. Because a criminal disposition such as no charge does not bind the contractual cancellation decision, the two tracks should be prepared separately from the outset. 3. Work Performed and Outcome LK Partners LLC (i) organized chronologically medical records, card use, utility payments, workplace changes, witness statements, and other evidence of A's living arrangements at the time of the move; (ii) prepared A's investigative statement by comparing it against the evidence; (iii) obtained the investigation referral and related records through an information-disclosure request to identify the disputed facts; and (iv) prepared evidence addressing a possible contract-cancellation notice in parallel with the criminal response. No criminal suspicion was established, relieving A of criminal exposure. The same body of evidence was then used to respond to the subsequent cancellation notice, preserving A's purchaser status. This case demonstrates that the criminal process and contractual status may proceed separately in disputes involving improper housing subscriptions; facts and living or financial records should therefore be organized chronologically for each track. Continuity in the records showing actual residence can determine the outcome.

Resolving a Model-Home Contract After Reviewing the Statutory Right of Withdrawal1. Facts and Background After receiving an advertising message and making contact, A visited a model home as instructed and entered into an agreement there. A later sought to withdraw. A retained LK Partners LLC to assess the burdens of maintaining the contractual relationship and the legal and negotiated options for ending it. 2. Key Legal Issues First, it was necessary to determine whether the withdrawal provisions of Article 8 of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Etc. applied. Second, A's status as a consumer under that Act had to be examined, because a contract made for investment purposes may present a disputed consumer-status issue. Third, if the Act applied, the commencement of the withdrawal period had to be determined: generally 14 days from receipt of the written agreement, or, where the agreement omitted required withdrawal information, 14 days from the date A knew or could have known that withdrawal was available. Fourth, the method of communicating withdrawal had to minimize later disputes. 3. Work Performed and Outcome LK Partners LLC (i) fixed the timeline from receipt of the advertisement through the visit, contracting, and payment; (ii) confirmed when the contract document was delivered and whether withdrawal information was provided; (iii) clearly communicated the withdrawal by content-certified mail and demanded return of all payments; and (iv) prepared cancellation and rescission/termination claims in the alternative. The withdrawal was recognized, the agreement was treated as never having taken effect, and all payments were returned. This case demonstrates the need to coordinate the formation history, contract language, performance stage, and evidence. The key issues are whether the statutory withdrawal regime applies and when the period began. Because the period is case-specific, the intention to withdraw should be recorded in writing without delay.

Mutual Rescission or Termination Following a Request to End the Agreement Shortly After Contracting1. Facts and Background Within several days after signing the agreement and paying the deposit, A concluded that maintaining the agreement would be difficult and requested rescission or termination. The project owner responded that the deposit could not be returned. A retained LK Partners LLC to assess the burdens of continuing the relationship and the legal and negotiated options for ending it. 2. Key Legal Issues First, it was necessary to determine whether a forfeiture clause for the deposit could be applied unchanged at the very early stage immediately after contract formation. Second, if the forfeiture clause constituted liquidated damages, its proportionality to the actual loss and the possibility of reduction under Article 398(2) of the Korean Civil Act had to be assessed. Third, the scope of any return upon mutual rescission or termination had to be determined. 3. Work Performed and Outcome LK Partners LLC (i) identified the exact time when A expressed the intention to end the agreement and the stage reached in performance; (ii) examined whether resale of the unit or subsequent procedures had actually been impaired; (iii) sent a content-certified notice specifying the asserted grounds and the amount to be returned, with a response deadline; and (iv) first explored resolution at the negotiation stage. The forfeiture claim was not accepted, the parties reached mutual rescission or termination, and A recovered the deposit. This case demonstrates the importance of reviewing the entire formation and performance context. The return amount depends on the precise wording of the forfeiture clause and whether resale of the unit was materially impeded. Early-stage cases may offer broader settlement possibilities, although each case is fact-specific.

Rescission or Termination After Reviewing a Sales Employee's Advance Payment of Part of the Deposit1. Facts and Background A paid only part of the cash available at the site. A sales employee transferred the remainder of the deposit on A's behalf, and A repaid that amount after returning home. A retained LK Partners LLC to assess the burdens of maintaining the contractual relationship and the legal and negotiated options for ending it. 2. Key Legal Issues First, the issue was whether the circumstances in which the employee's payment induced formation could constitute a defect in the contracting process, such as fraud or mistake. Second, the significance of circumstances such as accompanying A to a bank to withdraw cash had to be evaluated. Third, it was necessary to identify the evidence capable of proving the advance payment. 3. Work Performed and Outcome LK Partners LLC (i) secured messages requesting the advance payment, transfer records, and the remitter's name; (ii) organized the timeline from the visit through payment and the refund request; (iii) sent a content-certified notice identifying defects in the contracting process, including fraud or mistake, and demanding return of the deposit; and (iv) prepared the next response in case negotiations failed. The advance-payment circumstances were accepted as a defect in the contracting process, the agreement was rescinded or terminated, and A recovered the full deposit. This case demonstrates the need to review contract formation, contract language, performance, and evidence together. In practice, the existence of evidence proving the advance payment can determine the outcome. Records of the payment should therefore be preserved.

Rescission or Termination After the Original Agreement Was Not Delivered and Its Terms Differed from the Prior Explanation1. Facts and Background A signed documents at the contracting site but received only a custody confirmation rather than the original agreement. A was later unable to obtain even a copy when attempting to verify the terms. A retained LK Partners LLC to assess the burdens of maintaining the relationship and the available legal and negotiated options for ending it. 2. Key Legal Issues First, the issue was whether failure to deliver the original agreement affected the agreement's validity. Because the agreement is generally consensual and is formed by agreement of the parties, nondelivery alone does not ordinarily invalidate it. Second, the allocation of the burden of proof in a dispute over the terms had to be considered. Third, A's right to demand delivery and the legal significance of continued nondelivery had to be assessed. 3. Work Performed and Outcome LK Partners LLC (i) first secured the custody confirmation, receipts, messages, and other materials showing the existence and content of the agreement; (ii) demanded delivery of a copy in writing and set a response deadline; (iii) compared the delivered agreement with the representations made on site; and (iv) determined the direction of any cancellation or rescission/termination claim only after reviewing the original. The original agreement revealed provisions inconsistent with the prior explanation. Based on those differences, the agreement was rescinded or terminated and the payments already made were returned. This case shows the importance of reviewing contract formation, contract language, performance, and evidence together. The outcome turns on whether an actual discrepancy exists and whether it materially affects the contractual purpose. It is safer not to reach a conclusion before securing the original agreement.

Mutual Rescission of a Supply Agreement After Reviewing the Discrepancy Between Loan Representations and the Actual Outstanding Debt1. Facts and Background A entered into a supply agreement after a sales agent explained that both the interim payments and the balance could be financed, that the interim-payment loan would be interest-free, and that A would therefore need to prepare only the initial deposit to acquire the apartment. When repayment of the interim-payment loan was later demanded, A learned that debt of several hundred million won remained outstanding. A retained LK Partners LLC to assess both the burdens of maintaining the contractual relationship and the legal and negotiated options for bringing it to an end. 2. Key Legal Issues First, the issue was the size of the gap between the funds said to be required at the time of contracting and the total amount A was actually required to bear, and whether that gap was material to A's decision to contract. Second, it was necessary to determine whether the statements were merely sales solicitations or could support avoidance of the agreement on the ground of mistake or fraud. Third, the relative practical benefits of pursuing cancellation or rescission/termination, as opposed to resolving the matter by mutual rescission/termination, had to be compared. 3. Work Performed and Outcome LK Partners LLC (i) reviewed the supply agreement, balcony-extension and paid-option agreements, and interim-payment loan documents together to determine the outstanding debt and payment schedule; (ii) organized, by date, the materials supporting the representations made at contract formation, including consultation notes, messages, brochures, and the representative's business card; (iii) secured a comprehensive scope of authority covering withdrawal, cancellation, rescission/termination, restitution, and settlement negotiations; and (iv) where the interim-payment loan had been disbursed, sent notice jointly to the developer and the lending institution. The supply agreement was ultimately rescinded by mutual agreement. A was released from the contractual relationship, and the remaining interim-payment and balance obligations were resolved at the same time. This case demonstrates the need to design the response sequence by reviewing the circumstances of contract formation, the contract language, the stage of performance, and the available evidence together. The available range of settlement depends on whether evidence of the original representations remains and whether resale of the unit is realistically possible. The more specifically the discrepancy between the representations and reality can be identified, the more clearly the appropriate response can be determined. 

1. Facts and Background  Client A (the obligor) is a business operating from a unit within an aggregate (multi-unit) building, and had installed and used a sign sheet on the exterior glass of the building for purposes of business identification (the "Sign"). Certain co-owners of units in the building (the obligees) contended that the Sign had been installed on a common-area surface contrary to the common interests of the co-owners and, in advance of any judgment on the merits, applied for a mandatory provisional injunction requiring immediate removal of the Sign and, in the event of non-compliance, authorizing removal by the court bailiff at the obligor's expense. Concluding that immediate removal at the provisional-injunction stage might cause irreparable harm to its business, Client A retained LKP to defend the provisional-injunction application. 2. Key Legal Issues The principal issues were: (i) whether the exterior-glass surface on which the Sign was installed constituted a common area to which Article 5(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings applies, and whether installation of the Sign without a resolution of the management body or consultation with the management office amounted to conduct "contrary to the common interests of the co-owners"; (ii) whether, given that an application of this kind seeks a so-called "satisfaction-type" provisional injunction that creates a legal relationship substantively equivalent to the relief sought in the principal action, the obligees had discharged the heightened standard of prima facie proof applicable to such applications, which requires a higher level of demonstration of both the protected right and the necessity for preservation than ordinary provisional measures; and (iii) whether, in light of the location and scale of the Sign and the status of signs installed by other tenants on the same exterior glass, there was an imminent obstruction of or risk to the use or safety of the building attributable to the Sign, and whether any harm alleged by the obligees was of a nature that could be recovered through the principal action and monetary compensation. 3. Implementation and Outcome LKP (i) organized, on an item-by-item basis, the proposition that the materials submitted by the obligees did not reach the heightened standard of prima facie proof required, with respect to either the protected right or the necessity for preservation, in a satisfaction-type provisional injunction; (ii) compiled and submitted photographic and dimensional materials demonstrating, on an objective basis, that — having regard to the location and scale of the Sign and the status of signs installed by other tenants on the same exterior-glass surfaces — installation of the Sign did not create any imminent obstruction of or risk to the use or safety of the building for the obligees or for other tenants; and (iii) emphasized, in oral argument, that any infringement of ownership rights alleged by the obligees would be of a nature recoverable through the principal action and monetary compensation, and that there were no circumstances suggesting that any significant harm not readily remediable in the principal action would arise, or that the purpose of the action would be frustrated, in the absence of an immediate removal order before judgment on the merits. The competent court found the obligees' application to be without merit, dismissed the application in full, and ordered the obligees to bear the costs of the proceedings. The case is of practical significance in showing how, in disputes over exterior signs on aggregate buildings, procedural design and oral argument strategy can be structured at the provisional-injunction stage — ahead of the principal action — so as to maintain the client's stable business operations.

1. Facts and Background Client A (the plaintiff) became aware of an inappropriate relationship between A's spouse and a third party, B, and retained LKP to seek consolation money. In the proceedings, B argued that the contact had been "merely a one or two-time lapse" and not a continuing relationship. The principal task was therefore to show, by objective evidence, that what had occurred was not an isolated incident but a continuing and repeated relationship. 2. Key Legal Issues In assessing damages for this type of misconduct, the continuity and repetitiveness of the relationship are generally relevant. The main issues were: (i) how to organize, in chronological order, the frequency, duration, and timing of the meetings to show continuity; (ii) how to combine indicators of overnight stays and travel (vehicle routes, entry/exit times) with a contextual reading of lawfully obtained messenger materials (forms of address, emotional language, and shared schedules); and (iii) how to compile and organize precedents distinguishing continuing relationships from isolated lapses, so as to persuade the court that this matter was different from a typical "one-off" deviation. 3. Implementation and Outcome LKP (i) organized, in chronological order, the frequency, dates, and locations of the meetings on the basis of materials provided by Client A; (ii) analyzed indicators of overnight stays and travel through objectively verifiable materials such as vehicle routes and entry/exit times; and (iii) used the contextual elements of the messenger exchanges — forms of address, emotional expressions, shared schedules — to demonstrate an emotional and relational continuity inconsistent with a one-off encounter. Precedents distinguishing continuing relationships from isolated lapses were also compiled and submitted as comparative materials, and at the hearing LKP showed that the assembled materials converged into a single, coherent set of facts. The court declined to accept B's "one or two times" defense, recognized that the relationship had been continuing and repeated, and rendered a judgment in favor of Client A. The case is of practical significance in showing how chronological aggregation of circumstantial evidence and contextual analysis of messenger exchanges can support proof of the continuity of an extramarital relationship.

1. Facts and Background Client A (the plaintiff) had confirmed, through information from acquaintances and message records on the spouse's mobile phone, that an extramarital relationship between the spouse and a workplace colleague, B (the defendant), had continued for about one year. Considering child-rearing and her own employment, Client A did not wish to leave a litigation record; she wished to maintain the marriage and hold only B legally accountable. 2. Key Legal Issues The main issues were: (i) how to assess the evidentiary use and limitations of the messenger records and call logs obtained by Client A; (ii) how, given Client A's wish to avoid litigation, to design a strategy that placed cease-and-desist correspondence and settlement at the forefront; (iii) how, in the event B replied denying the relationship, to organize and convey, on an objective basis, the legal risks that would arise upon conversion to litigation, so as to elicit a willingness to settle; and (iv) how to draft, with care, a settlement agreement that included not only the financial settlement terms but also confidentiality, no-contact, and non-recurrence provisions. 3. Implementation and Outcome LKP (i) reviewed, as a first step, the evidentiary use and limitations of the messenger records and call logs obtained by Client A; (ii) given Client A's wish to avoid litigation, adopted a strategy that placed cease-and-desist correspondence at the forefront, and prepared and dispatched a cease-and-desist letter clearly setting out the facts of the conduct and the basis of legal responsibility; (iii) when B's response denied the relationship, organized and conveyed, on the basis of the available evidence, the specific legal risks that would arise on conversion to litigation, eliciting a willingness to settle; and (iv) drafted with care a settlement agreement that included confidentiality, no-contact, and non-recurrence provisions. A settlement was reached about three weeks after dispatch of the cease-and-desist letter; Client A obtained payment of the settlement sum and confidentiality and no-contact undertakings, bringing the matter to a conclusion without recourse to litigation. The case shows a settlement-oriented strategy designed around a client's wish for confidentiality and the preservation of her daily life.

1. Facts and Background Client A (the plaintiff) became aware of an inappropriate relationship between A's spouse and a third party, B, and tried to settle. B, however, denied responsibility, blamed Client A, and continued unsolicited contact, displaying an antagonistic attitude. Considering the welfare of the children and the need for daily stability, Client A wished, where possible, to resolve the matter without litigation. LKP was retained to develop a pre-litigation strategy that would change B's attitude through legal pressure and produce a settlement on reasonable terms. 2. Key Legal Issues As the matter aimed at out-of-court resolution, the principal issues were: (i) how to organize the facts and continuity of the relationship to neutralize defenses such as "merely a social acquaintance" or "a long-since terminated relationship"; (ii) how to convey to B, on an objective basis, the additional exposure (litigation costs, damages, reputational consequences) that would arise if the matter were litigated; and (iii) how to design protective settlement provisions — no-contact, non-disparagement, liquidated-damages, and confidentiality clauses — to deter recurrence. Drawing on family-practice know-how and relevant precedents, LKP prepared and dispatched a cease-and-desist letter that excluded emotional language and was firmly grounded in legal doctrine and precedent, securing a negotiating advantage at the pre-litigation stage. 3. Implementation and Outcome LKP (i) organized the facts of the relationship and its continuity from the materials Client A had provided, and reconstructed in chronological order the indicators bearing on B's awareness of the spouse's marital status; (ii) compiled, on an objective basis, the criteria typically applied to damages, the anticipated costs of litigation, and the foreseeable social exposure of a contested action, and incorporated those points into the cease-and-desist letter; and (iii) prepared guidance on settlement terms tailored to Client A's family, child-rearing, and workplace circumstances. The settlement agreement included no-contact, non-disparagement, confidentiality, and liquidated-damages provisions to deter recurrence. As a result, B changed position, engaged in negotiations on the basis of an acknowledgement of responsibility, and the matter was resolved early through a settlement that included payment, a written apology, and a cessation of contact, without recourse to litigation. The case illustrates a dispute-resolution strategy that prioritized the minimization of social exposure and the protection of the client's daily life and child-rearing environment.

1. Facts and Background Client A (the plaintiff) learned, from a third party, of an extramarital relationship between A's spouse and B (the defendant). Subsequently, B's spouse commenced a damages action against Client A's spouse. In response, Client A retained LKP to bring a damages action against B and indicated a wish to obtain damages at a level comparable to that recognized in the related case. 2. Key Legal Issues The main issues were: (i) how to incorporate the developing trends of the related case and the criteria applied to the calculation of damages into the present matter; (ii) how, in response to the court's recommendation that the case be transferred to the court of B's domicile, to organize the doctrinal basis for jurisdiction by appearance — including the principle that, where the defendant pleads to the merits without objecting to jurisdiction, jurisdiction by appearance may be recognized — so as to keep the matter before the same panel; and (iii) how to incorporate the principle of equity with the related case into the relief sought and the scope of the claim, and how to construct oral arguments so as to elicit a consistent judicial determination. 3. Implementation and Outcome LKP (i) analyzed the content, issues, and calculation methodology of the related case and designed the relief sought, the scope of the claim, and the damages-calculation strategy accordingly; (ii) adopted a strategy of filing the complaint with the same court and, in response to the court's recommendation of transfer of jurisdiction, organized the doctrinal grounds for jurisdiction by appearance and explained the practical advantages of having the matter heard by the same panel; and (iii) consistently presented the facts and the claim by reference to the principle of equity with the related case throughout the oral proceedings. The court recognized B's liability for the extramarital conduct and ordered B to pay Client A consolation money together with delayed-payment interest. The case shows how, where related cases are pending in parallel, jurisdictional strategy and the principle of equity can be combined into a coherent litigation strategy.

1. Facts and Background Client A (the plaintiff) confirmed an inappropriate relationship between A's spouse and an acquaintance, B (the defendant). B denied responsibility on the asserted basis that the relationship had "long since been terminated" and did not respond to Client A's settlement requests. Holding messenger screenshots indicating that the relationship had in fact continued until a relatively recent point in time, Client A wished to bring the matter to a conclusion by settlement at the pre-litigation stage and retained LKP. 2. Key Legal Issues The main issues were: (i) how to assess the evidentiary use and limitations of the messenger screenshots held by Client A and how to organize any supplementary materials; (ii) how, in anticipation of B's "already terminated" defense, to analyze with precision the dates and contexts of the messages to identify the period during which the relationship had continued; (iii) how to organize, on an objective basis, the matters that would be presented in any subsequent litigation — including the list of evidence to be submitted to the court and the anticipated amount of the claim — so that B would clearly perceive the practical benefits of settlement; and (iv) how to draft, with care, no-contact and non-recurrence provisions in the settlement agreement to deter recurrence. 3. Implementation and Outcome LKP (i) analyzed the dates and contexts of the messenger records submitted by Client A and organized the surrounding circumstances showing that the relationship had continued until a particular point in time; (ii) marshaled those materials to provide a direct rebuttal to B's "already terminated" defense and incorporated them into the cease-and-desist letter; (iii) stated, in the letter, both the substance of the available evidence and the list of evidence and anticipated amount of any claim that would be submitted to the court in litigation, so that B might perceive the practical benefits of settlement on an objective basis; and (iv) drafted with care a settlement agreement including no-contact and non-recurrence provisions. A settlement was reached about two weeks after the dispatch of the cease-and-desist letter, and Client A obtained payment of the settlement sum and a no-contact undertaking, bringing the matter to a conclusion without recourse to litigation. The case shows how, in the negotiation of a settlement, careful identification of the period of the relationship and the objective organization of litigation-related risks can affect the outcome.

Successful Damage Claim Against the State and Local Government for Soil Remediation Costs in a Redevelopment Area1. Fact Summary and Background• Client Situation: The client (AE District Housing Redevelopment Association) discovered severe soil contamination in land formerly owned by the State and Dongdaemun-gu while conducting apartment construction within the project area in Seoul. • Case Background: The Association had acquired the land through either paid purchase or gratuitous transfer from the State and Dongdaemun-gu. During construction, pollutants such as copper, lead, and zinc were found exceeding the threshold for soil contamination concerns, leading the Association to incur massive remediation expenses. • Key Review Matters: The core issues were whether the delivery of contaminated land by the sellers (State and local government) constituted a "default of obligation (incomplete performance)" and whether remediation liability could be sought for land that was transferred gratuitously. 2. Key Legal Issues• Liability for Damages Due to Incomplete Performance: Whether delivering land with buried pollutants without prior remediation constitutes a default under Article 390 of the Civil Act. • Standard for Calculating Remediation Costs: The process of objectively calculating the weight of pollutants and the resulting remediation costs specifically for the parcels sold by the defendants through expert appraisal. • Scope of Liability for Gratuitously Transferred Land: Legal interpretation on whether the State or local government can be held liable for warranty or damages regarding land transferred gratuitously (obsolete infrastructure) under the Urban Improvement Act. 3. Execution and Achievement• LKP’s Role and Arguments:o Assisted by a professional appraiser, LK Partners precisely analyzed the specific burial locations, volume, and weight of the contaminated soil to define the scope of the defendants' liability. o LKP pointed out that the defendants (Republic of Korea and Dongdaemun-gu) failed their remediation duties under the Soil Environment Conservation Act at the time of sale and logically proved that delivering the land in a contaminated state was a failure to fully perform contractual obligations. • Result for the Client: The court accepted LK Partners' arguments and rendered a partial victory for the plaintiff, ordering the Republic of Korea and Dongdaemun-gu to pay the Association for the remediation costs of the purchased land along with delayed interest. • Significance of the Case:o Established a practical legal precedent that redevelopment associations can be compensated for remediation costs based on "incomplete performance" when pollutants are found in land purchased from the State or local governments. o It is significant for reasonably distributing the economic burden of unexpected environmental cleanup costs—often incurred in large-scale projects—to the original parties responsible, such as the State. 

Successful Defense for a Regional Housing Association: Nullification of Mutual Termination and Refund Agreements1. Fact Summary and Background• Inception of the Case: The Plaintiff (a member of the association) joined a regional housing association in Mapo-gu, Seoul, selecting a specific unit size (39㎡) and paying approximately KRW 139.4 million in contributions. • Change in Circumstances: Following a change in the project plan that eliminated the selected unit size, the Plaintiff and the Defendant (the Association) entered into an agreement to mutually terminate the contract and refund the full amount of paid contributions. • Litigation: When the refund was delayed, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Association seeking the return of the funds based on the refund agreement. 2. Key Legal Issues• Validity of Refund Agreements without General Meeting Resolutions: A central issue was whether the agreement remained valid despite the lack of a general meeting resolution. Since association contributions are considered "collective property" (total ownership by all members), any act to refund them must follow strict procedural protocols. • Determining "Impossibility of Performance": The court debated whether the inability to provide the originally selected unit size due to project plan changes constituted a legal "impossibility of performance" of the Association's contractual obligations. 3. Execution and Achievement• LKP’s Role and Arguments:o Representing the Defendant (the Regional Housing Association), LKP strongly argued that the refund agreement in question was an act of disposal that reduced the Association's assets and was a contract imposing a burden on members outside the established budget. Therefore, it was void without a formal resolution from the general meeting. o Furthermore, LKP defended against the "impossibility of performance" claim by demonstrating that changes in unit sizes are reasonably foreseeable during the permit process for regional housing projects. LKP noted that the contract explicitly stated unit sizes could increase or decrease, meaning the supply of a "specific unit size" was not the absolute objective of the contract. • Result for the Client: The court accepted all of LK Partners' arguments, dismissing the Plaintiff's claims in their entirety and ordering the Plaintiff to bear all litigation costs—a total victory for the Defendant Association. • Significance of the Case:o The judgment reaffirmed the established Supreme Court principle that "refund guarantees" or "mutual termination agreements" made individually with members are ineffective if they lack proper legal procedures (general meeting resolutions). o This case is significant for protecting the stability of the project by preventing the risk of depleting project funds through indiscriminate and non-procedural refund promises. 

Recognition of Independent Distribution Rights for Owners of Houses Converted to Multi-Household Dwellings within New Town Districts1. Fact Summary and Background• Client Situation: The clients (Plaintiffs) are members of a redevelopment association in a Seoul New Town district who own individual units in buildings that were converted from multi-family (single owner) houses to multi-household (individual ownership) houses.• Case Background: The Association formulated a Management and Disposal Plan that granted only one distribution right (apartment voucher) to the entire group of clients, classifying the rest as subjects for cash compensation. The Association argued, based on Seoul Metropolitan Government ordinances, that the clients had not completed their partitioned registration (separate titles) by a specific deadline (end of 2003).• Key Review Matters: The core of the dispute was determining the "Base Date for Determining Rights" (cutoff date) for distribution rights in a New Town project and deciding whether statutory law or local ordinances should take precedence.2. Key Legal Issues• Legal Interpretation of the Base Date for Determining Rights: Unlike general redevelopment, New Town projects are governed by the "Special Act on the Promotion of Urban Refurbishment." LKP argued that the official designation date of the Promotion District (December 21, 2006) should serve as the base date for determining distribution rights.• Challenging the Illegality of Ordinance Application: LKP logically countered that the supplementary provisions of the Seoul Ordinance relied upon by the Association violated the legislative intent of the "Special Act on the Promotion of Urban Refurbishment" by retroactively depriving members of their legitimate distribution rights.• Meaning of "Conversion" in Building Ledgers: LKP emphasized that, legally, "conversion" should be judged based on the timing of the conversion in the building ledger, not the timing of partitioned registration.3. Execution and Achievement• LKP’s Role and Arguments:o Proven that the clients had completed the conversion to multi-household housing in 2002—well before the district designation—demonstrating that this was a legitimate exercise of rights rather than speculative "equity splitting."o Strongly argued that the resolution from a subsequent general meeting, held by the Association to cure procedural defects, was also void as it contained the same substantive defect (deprivation of distribution rights).• Result for the Client: The Seoul High Court accepted LK Partners' arguments, ruling that the portion of the Management and Disposal Plan that failed to recognize the clients' distribution rights was illegal. The court also confirmed that the general meeting resolution re-approving the plan was void.• Significance of the Case:o Successfully blocked an association from arbitrarily interpreting laws to infringe upon the property rights of minority members.o Provided a clear winning guideline for owners of converted multi-household houses within New Town projects, ensuring they do not unfairly lose their distribution rights due to complex and restrictive local ordinances.

Cancellation of Project Plan Due to Infringement of Environmental Rights and Abuse of Discretion Regarding a Retained Building1. Fact Summary and Background• Client Situation: The client (Plaintiff) is the owner of "D" Cathedral, a religious facility located within the "B" Redevelopment District in Seoul, and is a member of the association.• Case Background: Initially, the cathedral was planned to be demolished and relocated. However, following the client's persistent requests, the redevelopment plan was changed to "retain" the cathedral at its current location.• Cause of Dispute: While the Defendant Association revised the project plan to keep the cathedral, they placed five apartment buildings (up to 19 stories high) in the immediate vicinity (approx. 10 meters away).• Major Damages: If executed, the cathedral would be completely surrounded by high-rise buildings, resulting in a near-total loss of sunlight (continuous sunlight duration reduced to 0 minutes) and severe privacy violations, with apartment windows overlooking the interior of the cathedral and the convent.2. Key Legal Issues• Abuse of Discretionary Power: Whether the Association, as an administrative body, properly weighed the public interest against the private interest (the client's environmental rights and freedom of religious activity) when establishing the plan.• Limits of Building Act Exceptions: Whether the "Special Construction Zone" designation, which waives certain sunlight height restrictions, can justify infringements that exceed the "socially acceptable limit" (limit of endurance).• Omission of Proportionality (Balancing of Interests): Whether the Association prioritized the convenience of other members while entirely neglecting the living interests and environmental rights of the cathedral's users.3. Execution and Achievement• LKP’s Role and Arguments:o Emphasized the cathedral's historical significance (established in 1957) and the stable environment enjoyed by resident priests, nuns, and approximately 3,700 parishioners.o Proved through expert appraisal that the sunlight infringement rate would reach 80–100% after the apartment construction, clearly exceeding the limit of endurance.o Pointed out procedural illegality, as the newly planned road would encroach upon essential cathedral facilities (mechanical rooms, emergency exit stairs) without prior consultation or consideration of alternatives.• Result for the Client: The Seoul High Court canceled the Defendant Association's Revised Project Plan.• Significance of the Case:o Clarified that for retained buildings in redevelopment zones, associations must go beyond a formal "retention" decision and ensure minimum environmental rights so the building can function for its original purpose.o Confirmed that individual environmental rights and living interests cannot be unconditionally sacrificed for vague reasons like "increased project costs" or "public interest of housing improvement"

Court Recognizes Independent Member Status and Allotment Rights for Buyer Despite Seller's Temporary Multi-Property Ownership1. Fact Summary and BackgroundThe clients (Plaintiffs) purchased real estate located within the "C" Urban Environment Maintenance Project District in Seoul and completed the registration of ownership transfer. However, a conflict arose because the seller (D) had purchased another property within the same district immediately after selling the first property to the clients.As a result, the seller (D) became a "multi-property owner" for a brief period of two days before the clients finalized their ownership registration. Based on the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments, the Defendant (the Reconstruction Association) applied the restriction that multiple owners shall be treated as a single member. Consequently, the Association established a Management Disposal Plan that granted only one joint allotment right to the clients and the seller collectively. The clients faced the risk of losing their individual right to an apartment unit due to circumstances beyond their control and sought legal assistance from LK Partners.2. Key Legal IssuesThe core issue of this case was the interpretation of Article 39, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Urban Improvement Act, which restricts membership status when multiple persons come to own properties previously owned by a single person after the authorization of the association's establishment.•The Association’s Argument: Following the literal text of the law, since the seller owned multiple properties after the association was established, the buyers must be treated as a single member together with the seller.•LK Partners’ Argument: The legislative intent of this provision is to prevent an artificial increase in the number of members that could undermine project feasibility. We argued that since the total number of eligible members had not increased compared to the time of the association’s establishment, it was unjust to infringe upon the clients' property rights based on the "accidental circumstance" of the seller's temporary additional purchase.3. Execution and AchievementThe court fully accepted LK Partners' legal reasoning and ruled in favor of the clients.•Court's Ruling: If the number of persons entitled to allotment has not changed from the time of the association’s establishment, the restriction on membership status under the Urban Improvement Act should not be applied.•Final Result: The court canceled the part of the Management Disposal Plan that designated the clients and the seller as joint beneficiaries for a single unit. This successfully restored the clients' status as sole beneficiaries entitled to independent allotment rights.•Significance of the Case: This case is a meaningful precedent that prevents bona fide buyers from being unfairly deprived of their rights through a rigid interpretation of membership restriction laws. It clarifies that the "number of members at the time of establishment" should be the substantial standard for determining allotment rights.

Victory in Damages Suit: Proving No Negligence regarding Ventilator Disconnection Death in COVID-19 Isolation Ward1. Facts and BackgroundThis case involves a claim for damages filed by the bereaved family of an elderly patient (the Deceased) who passed away due to a ventilator tube disconnection while being treated in the general isolation unit of the client’s (Defendant Hospital) emergency room during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs alleged negligence on the part of the medical staff.The Deceased was an elderly patient with underlying conditions who was admitted for dyspnea and underwent endotracheal intubation. During treatment, the patient exhibited unstable behavior, such as failing to follow medical instructions, shaking their head, or pushing the tube with their tongue. The medical staff applied physical restraints and re-secured the tube. However, despite reconnection measures after a first disconnection, a second disconnection occurred shortly thereafter. The second disconnection was discovered by a guardian immediately after it happened. Although the medical staff performed CPR immediately, the patient passed away. The plaintiffs claimed that the medical staff were negligent for failing to take additional preventive measures (such as head fixation) after the first disconnection, for neglecting the patient during the second disconnection, and for failing to hear the alarm.2. Key Legal Issues and LKP’s RoleThe key issues in this case were: ▲ Whether there was a breach of the duty of observation (neglect) given the specific circumstances of an isolation ward, ▲ The medical validity of additional fixation measures (such as head fixation) to prevent ventilator tube disconnection, and ▲ Whether the mechanical alarm functioned and was perceived.Representing the client, LKP presented the following medical and legal arguments:* Demonstrating the Inevitability of the Medical Environment: We argued that treatment in the ER isolation unit rather than the ICU was unavoidable due to the pending COVID-19 confirmation status. We emphasized that, given the shortage of manpower and the need to treat other critically ill patients simultaneously, it was impossible for medical staff to reside in the isolation unit and monitor the patient 24/7.* Presenting Medical Standards: We rebutted the plaintiff's claim regarding "head fixation" by citing medical grounds stating that such measures are not clinically recommended and could rather increase patient instability, potentially causing cervical injury or worsening vital signs. We also clarified that over-tightening the connection carries a higher risk of total tube extubation.* Clarifying Causation and Fulfillment of Duty: We proved that the medical staff took the best possible measures, including using restraints and frequently checking the tube position. We also pointed out the plaintiff's lack of proof regarding the causal link between the time of discovery and death, as well as the alleged failure of the alarm.3. Execution and OutcomeThe court fully accepted LKP's arguments. The court ruled that: ① Given the manpower situation in the emergency room, the lapse of approximately 6 minutes alone cannot be deemed a failure of duty of care; ② Since the medical staff took measures such as applying restraints and re-securing the position, they cannot be seen as having a duty to take additional measures (such as head fixation); and ③ There is no evidence that the alarm did not sound or that the medical staff neglected it. Consequently, the court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims and ordered them to bear the litigation costs, resulting in a complete victory for the client. This case is significant as it confirmed the reasonable scope of medical staff's duty of care during disastrous medical situations like a pandemic and clarified that medical staff cannot be held unlimitedly liable for results caused by a patient's sudden, unpredictable actions.

Medical Malpractice Damages Lawsuit Case | Sensory Disturbance After Tooth Extraction, Hospital Liability Not RecognizedIn a medical malpractice damages lawsuit handled by LK Partners, the court ruled that the hospital bore no liability. This case involved a medical dispute concerning sensory disturbance following a tooth extraction and provides meaningful guidance on how courts assess medical negligence. Case Overview After undergoing a tooth extraction, the patient experienced persistent sensory disturbance in the mandibular (lower jaw) area. The patient filed a damages claim against the hospital, alleging that residual impairment resulted from inadequate explanation prior to surgery and negligent postoperative management. Hospital’s Arguments The hospital contended that: Sufficient explanations were provided to the patient prior to the procedure; There was no specific negligence in the surgical process; and Mandibular sensory disturbance is a complication that may commonly occur after tooth extraction. Court’s Ruling The court accepted the hospital’s arguments, finding that: The sensory disturbance fell within the range of complications that may occur after surgery; The hospital fulfilled its duty to explain potential risks to the patient; and No negligence or improper management was identified during the surgical process. Accordingly, the court did not recognize the hospital’s liability and dismissed the patient’s claims. Significance of the Decision This ruling clarifies that: The occurrence of postoperative aftereffects does not automatically constitute medical negligence; Complications may arise during surgical procedures, and where medical professionals have provided adequate prior explanations and fulfilled their duty of care, liability is limited; and In medical disputes, the most critical issues are whether the physician’s duty to explain and duty of care were properly discharged. LK Partners’ Commentary Medical malpractice disputes are complex matters requiring both specialized medical understanding and careful legal analysis. A proper response requires thorough examination of: whether the outcome constitutes a postoperative complication, whether the damage resulted from medical negligence, and whether the patient was provided with sufficient explanation in advance. Medical Malpractice and Medical Dispute Consultation If you are facing difficulties related to a medical malpractice damages claim or a medical dispute, we recommend consulting with the medical litigation specialists at LK Partners. Drawing on extensive experience, we provide optimal, case-specific legal solutions.

Damages Lawsuit Concerning Involuntary Hospitalization for Mental IllnessIn a damages lawsuit related to involuntary hospitalization for mental illness handled by LK Partners, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, accepting the hospital’s position that the requirements for protective admission were satisfied and that no negligence occurred. Case Overview A patient suffering from a mental illness was placed under involuntary (protective) hospitalization, after which a damages lawsuit was filed. The plaintiff alleged that the hospital misjudged the patient’s condition and unnecessarily imposed compulsory admission, seeking compensation for emotional distress and related losses. Plaintiff’s Arguments The patient’s symptoms were not severe enough to warrant involuntary hospitalization. The hospital failed to comply with the procedures prescribed under the Mental Health Welfare Act and wrongfully decided on admission. As a result, the patient suffered mental and financial harm, for which the hospital should be held liable. Hospital’s Arguments The patient posed a risk of self-harm or harm to others, thereby satisfying the statutory requirements for protective admission. Based on the physician’s judgment at the time and the medical records, there were no procedural deficiencies. The admission was an unavoidable measure to protect the patient’s health and safety, and no negligence existed. Court’s Decision The court accepted the hospital’s arguments and held that: The patient’s condition met the requirements for protective admission (risk of self-harm or harm to others). The hospitalization was carried out based on the medical professionals’ expertise and judgment and could not be deemed unlawful or negligent. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed. Significance of the Ruling This case clarifies the standards applied to protective hospitalization of patients with mental illness and delineates the scope of hospital liability. Protective admission may be necessary to ensure the safety of the patient and others. Where medical professionals make a reasonable judgment based on the circumstances at the time and contemporaneous medical records, it is difficult to impose damages liability after the fact. Nonetheless, medical institutions should maintain thorough and accurate medical records throughout the process to prepare for potential disputes. LK Partners’ Commentary Cases involving mental illness are particularly sensitive and complex, as they implicate both patient safety and human rights. The key issues are: whether the requirements for involuntary hospitalization are satisfied, whether procedural legitimacy is secured, and whether medical records are sufficiently complete and accurate. Careful review of these factors is essential. Medical Malpractice and Medical Dispute Consultation If you are experiencing difficulties related to a medical malpractice damages claim or a medical dispute, we recommend consulting with the medical litigation specialists at LK Partners. With extensive experience and professional expertise, we provide tailored, case-specific legal solutions.  

Medical Malpractice Damages Lawsuit | Diagnostic Error Found, but No Liability Recognized for the Patient’s DeathIn a medical malpractice damages lawsuit handled by LK Partners, the court acknowledged a diagnostic error by the defendant hospital but did not recognize a causal relationship between that error and the patient’s death. As a result, the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed. This case highlights the critical importance of proving not only negligence but also causation in medical disputes. Case Overview The deceased patient visited a hospital complaining of headaches and vomiting and underwent a CT scan. However, no signs of a ruptured cerebral aneurysm were identified at that time. The patient was later transferred to another hospital and underwent brain surgery, but never regained consciousness and subsequently passed away. Plaintiff’s (Patient’s Family’s) Arguments • The defendant hospital’s medical staff clearly committed a diagnostic error by failing to detect signs of a ruptured cerebral aneurysm on the CT images. • Had the risk of rebleeding been properly assessed and timely measures taken, the patient would not have died. • Therefore, the plaintiff argued that there was a causal relationship between the hospital’s negligence and the patient’s death, and that damages should be awarded. Defendant’s (Hospital’s) Arguments • Based on the initial CT images alone, it was difficult to clearly identify subarachnoid hemorrhage. • Even when the patient revisited the hospital after being discharged, there were no obvious signs of cerebral hemorrhage. • The patient’s death was caused by a subsequent rebleeding event, which had no direct causal connection to the alleged diagnostic error at the initial visit. Court’s Ruling The court held as follows: • A diagnostic error by the defendant hospital is acknowledged. • However, the patient’s death resulted from a subsequent rebleeding, and it is difficult to recognize a direct causal relationship between the initial diagnostic error and the death. • Accordingly, a diagnostic error alone is insufficient to impose liability for the patient’s death. As a result, the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed. Significance of the Decision This case clearly demonstrates that negligence and causation must be proven separately. Even where medical negligence is established, liability for damages is limited unless that negligence can be directly linked to the patient’s harm, such as death or residual disability. The ruling underscores that, in medical malpractice litigation, establishing causation is often the most critical factor for a plaintiff to prevail. LK Partners’ Commentary Medical malpractice damages claims are not determined solely by the existence of negligence. A proper legal assessment requires a thorough review of whether there was negligence in the medical act, whether that negligence is directly connected to the patient’s death or injury, and whether such causation can be legally proven. Careful analysis of these complex issues is essential for an effective legal response. Medical Malpractice and Medical Dispute Consultation If you are experiencing difficulties related to a medical malpractice damages claim or a medical dispute, we recommend consulting with the medical litigation specialists at LK Partners. Drawing on extensive experience and professional expertise, we provide tailored legal solutions optimized for each individual case.

Medical Malpractice Damages Lawsuit | Plaintiff’s Claim Dismissed Due to Difficulty in Establishing Medical NegligenceIn a medical malpractice damages lawsuit handled by LK Partners, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, finding it difficult to conclude that the defendant hospital and its medical staff committed any negligence in the course of treatment. This case underscores the importance of the standards for determining medical negligence and the burden of proving a causal link between alleged negligence and residual disability in medical disputes.Case Overview The patient underwent a cervical ultrasound examination and biopsy at a hospital and was diagnosed with a suspected brachial plexus tumor. During the subsequent surgical procedure, nerve damage occurred, leaving the patient with residual impairments such as motor dysfunction. The patient then filed a claim for damages against the hospital. Plaintiff’s (Patient’s) Arguments The hospital failed to establish an accurate treatment plan prior to surgery and excessively resected the tumor, thereby causing damage to the brachial plexus. Postoperative follow-up care was inadequate, and the hospital did not sufficiently explain the risk of nerve injury and the possibility of residual disability.Accordingly, the patient argued that the hospital should be held liable for damages resulting from medical negligence.Defendant’s (Hospital’s) Arguments Given the circumstances at the time, the chosen surgical method was the most reasonable and appropriate treatment option. Nerve damage was unavoidable in the process of tumor removal, and the medical staff fulfilled their duty of care to protect the patient during surgery.The patient’s residual symptoms fell within the scope of known complications and could not be attributed to negligence. Court’s Ruling The court held as follows: In light of the medical standards at the time the treatment plan was established, the patient’s condition, and the examination results, the hospital’s choice of treatment fell within a reasonable range.The nerve damage and resulting residual disability constituted complications rather than negligence.There was insufficient evidence to conclude that the hospital breached its duty of care; therefore, the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed.Significance of the Decision This ruling demonstrates that medical negligence cannot be established solely on the basis of an unfavorable treatment outcome. Courts assess negligence by examining whether medical professionals formulated and implemented a reasonable and appropriate treatment plan under the circumstances at the time.Even where a patient suffers residual disability, if such outcomes fall within the category of foreseeable complications, medical negligence may not be recognized.LK Partners’ Commentary In medical malpractice and damages claims, the key issues are whether the duty of care was fulfilled during treatment and whether a causal relationship between the alleged negligence and the damage can be established.A proper legal response requires thorough examination of: whether the medical judgment was appropriate under the standards prevailing at the time,whether the patient’s outcome constitutes a complication or damage caused by negligence, andwhether the duty to explain risks and alternatives was adequately discharged. Medical Malpractice and Medical Dispute Consultation If you are experiencing difficulties related to a medical malpractice damages claim or a medical dispute, we recommend consulting with the medical litigation specialists at LK Partners. With extensive experience and professional expertise, we provide case-specific, optimal legal solutions.