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 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.