-
BlogsIf You Need Help Reporting Unpaid Compensation as a Freelancer and Seeking Assistance from the Labor Office, Read This Carefully
Why Is Unpaid Compensation So Common for Freelancers? One of the most frequent problems freelancers face is the non-payment of service fees or compensation. Phrases such as “Let’s settle everything next month,” “The client hasn’t paid us yet,” or “The performance is unclear, so it’s hard to finalize the amount” come up repeatedly. Payment responsibility is often postponed on the grounds that the individual is “not an employee,” or work proceeds without a clearly defined payment structure from the outset. The absence of employment insurance or coverage under the four major social insurance schemes, combined with an environment where it feels difficult to raise issues about non-payment, makes freelancers even more vulnerable. At this stage, however, one point must be clearly understood. The root of the problem is not the freelancer’s status itself, but contracts and compensation structures that were disadvantageously designed from the beginning. Being a Freelancer Does Not Mean “Wages” Are Never Protected Many freelancers facing unpaid compensation conclude, “I’m not an employee, so I’m not protected.” However, legal determinations are not based on the title of the contract, but on the actual nature of the work relationship. Courts consider factors such as whether the user determined the content of the work and exercised substantial direction and supervision during its performance, whether working hours and locations were designated and binding, and whether the individual could independently operate a business—for example, by owning equipment or hiring third parties to perform the work. They also assess whether the compensation constitutes payment for the labor itself, whether a base or fixed salary was set, and whether there was continuity in the work relationship and exclusivity toward the user. When these elements are recognized, there are many cases where, despite a “freelancer” contract, worker status is acknowledged and the issue of unpaid service fees is treated as unpaid wages under the Labor Standards Act. Even if worker status is ultimately denied, that does not mean there is no way to respond. Claims can still be pursued as civil claims for unpaid service fees or compensation. The most dangerous decision is to prematurely rule out these possibilities on your own. Why Handling the Issue Alone Often Makes Things Worse for Freelancers When payment is withheld, emotions can easily take over. However, a single hastily sent message can put the entire response to unpaid freelancer compensation at a disadvantage. Such messages are often used to justify non-payment or are exploited as evidence to evade responsibility. Outcomes vary significantly depending on whether a payment date was specified, how performance-based clauses are interpreted, and what legal meaning is attributed to verbal agreements or messenger conversations. If handled incorrectly, freelancers may be directly exposed to arguments such as “the compensation was never agreed upon,” “performance was insufficient,” or “there is no obligation to pay due to contract termination.” This is not an issue an individual should be expected to endure alone. Without reassessing the underlying structure, unpaid compensation issues for freelancers tend to become prolonged. Decent Law Firm’s Approach to Handling Unpaid Compensation for Freelancers Decent Law Firm does not view unpaid freelancer compensation as a simple matter of payment demands. From the initial stage, we review both the contract and the actual work performed to conduct a detailed analysis of potential worker status. We systematically organize messenger records, emails, and past payment practices to prevent the formation of justifications for refusing payment. Where worker status is recognized, we pursue claims that include unpaid wages, severance pay, and statutory late payment interest (20% per annum under Article 37(1) of the Labor Standards Act and Article 17 of its Enforcement Decree). Where worker status is denied, we shift strategy to claims for unpaid service fees or damages under civil law. There is only one guiding principle. Whether the chosen approach makes it realistically possible to recover the money. If you are a freelancer losing sleep over this issue, remember clearly that you are not alone. If, on the other hand, you treat this matter lightly, even amounts that could have been recovered may be lost, and unpaid compensation can solidify into irreversible financial damage.
2026-02-06 Naver Blog -
Blogs
If You’re Curious About Debt Relief and Repayment Options for Crypto Loans, Read This Carefully
Why Crypto Loans Become Problematic in Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Proceedings Crypto loans differ fundamentally from conventional personal loans or private lending, as the form of collateral and transaction pathways are often unclear or non-standard. In rehabilitation and bankruptcy practice, crypto loans typically fall into the following categories: Exchange-linked crypto loan products Private, peer-to-peer loans secured by crypto assets Loans provided through overseas crypto platforms Many debtors mistakenly assume that crypto-related debts do not need to be disclosed, or that overseas transactions fall outside Korean legal procedures. This assumption is highly risky. Once a debt is omitted, it may later be excluded from discharge and continue to survive. Moreover, if the integrity of the procedure is compromised, courts are more likely to dismiss the case or deny discharge. From the moment a debtor makes unilateral judgments, the case can begin to move in an unfavorable direction. How Crypto Loans Are Treated in Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Whether a crypto loan is recognized as a valid debt depends on the legal structure of the loan and the flow of funds. Where crypto assets were provided as collateral, courts must assess whether the collateral arrangement can be legally recognized as a secured claim under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (such as a rehabilitation secured claim or a separately satisfied claim). If the collateral structure is not legally valid, the debt is treated as a general rehabilitation claim or bankruptcy claim. In addition, the timing and method used to assess the market value of crypto assets are critical in determining the debtor’s asset pool. Price volatility and whether the crypto collateral has already been liquidated directly affect the feasibility of a rehabilitation repayment plan. In bankruptcy cases, further issues may arise, including: Whether repayments or collateral provided to specific creditors prior to filing are subject to avoidance actions under Articles 391–407 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act Procedural complications in claim verification and distribution involving overseas creditors In practice, many debtors become worse off not because of the amount of debt itself, but because the handling of crypto loans is legally flawed. Key Issues That Must Be Addressed When You Have Crypto Loans The reason crypto loan transactions and borrowing relationships must never be concealed is straightforward. Courts determine whether to approve a rehabilitation plan or grant a discharge based on the accuracy and completeness of the debtor’s asset and creditor disclosures (Articles 147, 148, and 564(1)(3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act). Accordingly, full and accurate disclosure of all assets and liabilities is mandatory. When properly organized documentation is submitted, proceedings tend to progress in a stable and predictable manner. Conversely, if the initial approach is incorrect, corrective orders are repeatedly issued, the risk of dismissal increases, and both time and costs escalate unnecessarily. At this stage, the debtor’s response strategy—and whether professional guidance is involved—often determines the outcome. For many individuals losing sleep over crypto loan issues, proper legal handling is the first step toward regaining stability. How Decent Law Firm Handles Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Cases Involving Crypto Loans Decent Law Firm approaches crypto loan cases by first restructuring the underlying transaction framework to align with court standards. We develop tailored response strategies based on loan type—exchange-linked products, overseas platforms, or private lending—and adjust for crypto holdings, liquidation timing, and market volatility so these factors do not negatively affect the procedure. Our assistance goes far beyond administrative filing. We provide strategy-driven legal handling designed to proactively prevent dismissal or denial of discharge. Rather than concluding that “crypto loans make rehabilitation impossible,” we focus on how crypto loans must be handled to make rehabilitation or bankruptcy legally viable. If crypto-related debts and assets are not accurately identified and properly addressed, they can materially undermine plan approval or discharge decisions. For this reason, a structured and professional response from the earliest stage is essential. Having crypto loans does not make rehabilitation or bankruptcy impossible. However, improper handling can make it impossible. You do not need to carry that risk alone—Decent Law Firm provides the legal strategy and response needed to navigate crypto loan issues effectively.
2026-02-06 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Is Crypto Referral Legal? Why Financial Authority Press Releases Are Not Enough
Following a recent press release by the Financial Services Commission (FSC), inquiries regarding the legality of crypto referral programs have increased significantly. Many businesses that use exchange referral codes for marketing, investment advisory services, or community operations are now concerned about potential violations of the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information (the “AML Act”). However, the legality of crypto referral programs cannot be determined solely based on an FSC press release. In practice, legal assessments must take into account the statutory provisions of the AML Act, relevant court decisions, and investigative standards applied by law enforcement authorities. The Meaning and Limitations of the FSC Press Release In its press release, the FSC suggested that certain referral structures could constitute brokerage or intermediary activities involving virtual asset exchanges. It is important to note, however, that this position reflects an administrative interpretation, not a binding judicial ruling or settled legal doctrine. When legal liability is at issue, courts ultimately determine—on a case-by-case basis—whether a specific referral structure satisfies the statutory elements of a regulated virtual asset service provider under the AML Act. Accordingly, it is legally inappropriate to conclude that all referral programs are unlawful based solely on regulatory commentary. The Core Legal Issue Under the AML Act Article 7 of the AML Act imposes reporting obligations on virtual asset service providers. The key question is whether a referral program goes beyond simple advertising or promotion and instead constitutes the business of brokering or intermediating the purchase, sale, or exchange of virtual assets. In making this determination, authorities focus not on the mere use of referral codes, but on substantive factors such as whether the operator intervenes in transaction structures, influences investment decisions, controls the flow of funds, or effectively forces users to use a specific exchange. Absent these elements, referral activities are generally viewed as marketing rather than brokerage. Guidance from Court Decisions and Investigative Practice Court rulings and multiple non-indictment decisions indicate a consistent approach: referral programs are often characterized as marketing arrangements provided by exchanges, carried out based on users’ voluntary choices. Where the operator does not execute trades, handle customer funds, or mandate the use of a specific exchange, it is difficult to classify such activities as regulated virtual asset services. In practice, investigative authorities tend to focus less on the existence of a referral program itself and more on whether it is combined with fraudulent conduct, unregistered business operations, or substantive involvement in investment decisions. Key Considerations for Crypto Referral Businesses That said, not all referral structures are risk-free. Legal concerns may arise where a business repeatedly promotes only a single exchange, excludes alternative options, or combines referral activities with investment guidance that materially affects users’ decisions. In such cases, the activity may be viewed as de facto brokerage or intermediation. Ultimately, the legality of a crypto referral program depends not on its label, but on whether the overall business structure can be legally justified under the AML Act. Businesses that currently operate referral programs—or are considering implementing them—should carefully assess their structure before regulatory or investigative issues arise. Decent Law Firm’s Digital Asset Team provides legal opinions on the compliance of crypto referral structures, evaluates AML Act risks, and assists clients in preparing for potential regulatory or investigative scrutiny. Crypto referrals are not simply a question of “legal or illegal,” but whether the structure can be clearly explained and defended under the law. If you require a legal review of your crypto referral business model, consulting experienced legal professionals at an early stage can be a critical step in risk management.
2026-02-04 Naver Blog -
Blogs
If You Need Help Understanding the Meaning, Timeline, and Supreme Court Precedents on Lawsuits to Confirm Worker Status
Why Lawsuits to Confirm Worker Status Matter Even when contracts are signed under labels such as “freelancer,” “outsourcing,” or “independent contractor,” the first and most critical issue in a dispute is whether the individual legally qualifies as a “worker.” A lawsuit to confirm worker status is the procedure that definitively resolves this issue, and it serves as the starting point for all subsequent legal determinations, including wages, severance pay, the legality of dismissal, and entitlement to social insurance. Once worker status is recognized, the protective provisions of the Labor Standards Act—covering wages, severance pay, and restrictions on dismissal—apply retroactively. As a result, previously unsettled rights and obligations are determined all at once (Article 2(1)1 of the Labor Standards Act). This makes the issue a source of real protection for one party and, at the same time, a significant legal burden for the other. Above all, if the initial approach is misdirected, it can lead to legal risks that are difficult to remedy later. For this reason, the issue must never be approached lightly. How Courts Determine Worker Status When determining whether an individual qualifies as a worker, courts do not focus on the form or title of the contract. Instead, they examine the substance of the working relationship—specifically, whether the individual provided labor to the employer in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages. In practice, courts comprehensively consider economic and social factors such as: Whether the employer determines the content of the work and exercises substantial direction and supervision over how it is performed Whether the employer designates working hours and the workplace, and whether the individual is bound by such designation Whether the individual can independently operate a business at their own expense and responsibility Whether the individual bears the risks of profit and loss arising from the provision of labor Whether the remuneration constitutes compensation for the labor itself Whether a base salary or fixed compensation is set, and whether wage income tax is withheld The continuity of the working relationship and the degree of exclusivity toward the employer Whether the individual is recognized as a worker under social security systems That said, factors such as the existence of a fixed salary, withholding of wage income tax, or recognition under social insurance schemes are matters the employer—often in a stronger economic position—can unilaterally determine. Therefore, worker status should not be easily denied based on these factors alone. In short, no single element is determinative. The key lies in assessing the overall structure and substance of the working relationship. Practical Issues That Commonly Arise in Disputes In lawsuits to confirm worker status, the burden of proving worker status generally lies with the individual asserting it (Supreme Court Decision dated June 25, 2020, Case No. 2020Da207864). Accordingly, it is essential to secure concrete evidence that demonstrates actual working conditions and the existence of direction and supervision. In practice, claims for unpaid wages or severance pay are often combined with a worker status confirmation claim. If worker status is recognized, rights are applied retroactively, which can significantly expand the scope of the dispute and the associated risks. As a result, the later a strategic approach is taken, the greater the financial and legal burden becomes for the parties involved. Decent Law Firm’s Approach to Lawsuits Confirming Worker Status In lawsuits to confirm worker status, the most important task is not merely asserting that worker status exists, but proving—through concrete facts—that the substance of the labor relationship constitutes a relationship of subordination to the employer. Decent Law Firm approaches these cases by focusing on the actual substance of the working relationship, rather than the form or title of the contract, and by structuring the facts in a way that allows the court to make a clear legal determination. We also view worker status confirmation lawsuits not as isolated win-or-lose cases, but as the starting point of the entire dispute. In doing so, we comprehensively assess the client’s situation and the potential legal risks that may arise after the judgment, and set a strategy aimed at minimizing burdens that could extend beyond the outcome itself. A lawsuit to confirm worker status is a procedure that should never be taken lightly. This is precisely why professional legal assistance is essential from the initial planning stage onward.
2026-02-03 Naver Blog -
Blogs
If You Are Facing Potential Criminal Liability in a Voice Phishing Police Investigation, This Is Essential Reading
Treating a Voice Phishing Police Investigation as “Witness Questioning” May Already Be Too Late In voice phishing cases, a police investigation may begin either as a witness interview or, from the outset, as a suspect interrogation, depending on the circumstances. Once investigative authorities recognize the existence of criminal suspicion and commence an investigation, suspect status is established, and the rights of a suspect—including the right to remain silent—must be guaranteed (Supreme Court of Korea, June 24, 2010, Decision 2008Do12127). However, even if an investigation begins as a witness interview, the individual’s status may be converted to that of a suspect as allegations become more concrete during questioning. For this reason, careful and strategic action is required from the very early stages. At the initial stage, investigators typically focus on quickly structuring the case around key issues such as whether bank accounts were provided, whether the individual was involved in the delivery or collection of cash, how instructions were received, and whether any form of compensation was involved. Depending on the direction of the statements made at this stage, the assessment may shift toward viewing the individual as a minor participant, an aider and abettor, or a co-perpetrator. Why Saying “I Didn’t Know” Rarely Works in Voice Phishing Cases In voice phishing investigations, the core issue is not merely whether the individual subjectively recognized the crime, but whether they were aware of the possibility of criminal conduct and nonetheless accepted that risk. Even if a person claims they did not explicitly recognize the conduct as criminal, criminal liability may still be established where dolus eventualis (conditional intent) is found based on factors such as abnormal transaction structures, repeated involvement, or the existence of financial compensation. In practice, statements such as “I thought it was suspicious but followed instructions anyway” or “I didn’t know it was illegal” frequently become decisive issues during investigations. Courts have recognized conditional intent in such cases by comprehensively considering factors including the abnormality of the transaction structure, repeated participation, the existence of monetary compensation, the general social awareness of voice phishing schemes, and any prior experience with similar incidents (Changwon District Court, May 22, 2019, Decision 2019No606; Seoul Southern District Court, Oct. 28, 2020, Decision 2020GoDan3736). While claims of good faith may be emotionally understandable, entirely different standards apply in legal evaluation. The Most Critical Point in a Voice Phishing Police Investigation: Initial Response Making spontaneous statements without legal counsel during the early stage of an investigation, or submitting to mobile phone and messenger forensic analysis without preparation, carries significant risk. In particular, many cases follow the same pattern: after being told that “telling the truth will be fine,” individuals provide a full account of events, only to find that the issue later shifts to whether they qualify as an aider, abettor, or co-offender. Subsequent procedures often progress far more quickly than expected. Depending on the initial response, cases that could have ended in non-referral at the police stage may proceed to prosecutorial dispositions such as suspension of indictment, summary indictment, or even a full criminal trial. Each outcome carries distinct legal consequences, making it essential to carefully determine the direction of the case from the very beginning. A voice phishing police investigation is not a one-time questioning process; failure at the initial response stage often directly determines the final outcome. Why Legal Assistance from Decent Law Firm Is Essential in Voice Phishing Police Investigations Decent Law Firm does not merely organize post hoc explanations in voice phishing police investigations. Before suspect status is formally fixed, we analyze the structure of the case and legally design the scope and direction of statements. Not all acts of providing accounts or transferring funds result in identical criminal liability. Co-perpetration under Article 30 of the Criminal Act and aiding and abetting under Article 32 are distinguished based on the degree of joint intent and functional control over the execution of the crime (Incheon District Court, Nov. 26, 2015, Decisions 2015GoDan2502 and 2015GoDan2957 (consolidated)). Even in the case of aiding and abetting, conditional awareness or foreseeability of the principal offender’s crime is sufficient to establish liability (Changwon District Court, May 22, 2019, Decision 2019No606). Because these legal boundaries must be determined through case-specific analysis, professional legal review is essential from the earliest stage. If statements recorded in investigative records are not strategically managed, reversing their impact in later proceedings becomes extremely difficult. A voice phishing police investigation should never be taken lightly. If an investigation has already begun, attempting to explain everything alone is not the solution. A structured approach—starting with a careful review of the case framework—is required.
2026-02-03 Naver Blog -
Blogs
The Legal Boundaries of Virtual Assets Through the Lens of the Bitcoin Whitepaper
The Bitcoin Whitepaper Is Not a “Manual,” but a Legal Benchmark Many people understand the Bitcoin whitepaper as nothing more than a technical document. In actual disputes or criminal investigations, however, the whitepaper functions not as a simple explanation, but as the starting point for legal judgment. The contents of a whitepaper serve as key evidence in determining how a project was structured, what assumptions underpinned its design, and what representations were made to users or investors. The assumption that “having a whitepaper makes a project lawful” is therefore highly dangerous. If, at an early stage, a project adopts or modifies the structure of Bitcoin without proper legal review, and the actual operational model differs from what was explained to investors, such conduct may be evaluated as deceptive. In particular, where a project promises principal protection or high returns while in practice paying earlier participants using funds from later investors—a so-called Ponzi scheme—fraud charges may be established (see Seoul High Court Decision, Aug. 7, 2020, Case No. 2020No596). From this point onward, the matter clearly exceeds the limits of what an individual or business can assess on its own. For those losing sleep over these concerns, meaningful solutions do not begin with technology, but with a legal perspective. Risks That Arise When the Whitepaper and Actual Operations Diverge Problems arise when elements that do not exist in the Bitcoin whitepaper are added during real-world business operations. Typical examples include discrepancies in profit-sharing methods, reward mechanisms, or the identity of the actual operator compared to what is described in the whitepaper. When technical explanations and business operations are not clearly separated—particularly where multi-level membership recruitment structures or principal-guarantee arrangements are involved—the structure may constitute violations of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business Without Authorization or the Door-to-Door Sales Act. Furthermore, if high returns are promised to investors despite the absence of any realistic ability to generate such returns, fraud liability may arise. The extent to which discrepancies between a whitepaper and actual operations are legally tolerable is assessed from the standpoint of investor protection and transactional fairness. Legal liability is especially likely to arise in cases such as the following: The whitepaper describes a decentralized structure, but in reality a specific entity controls token issuance and distribution The technical development plan or business model stated in the whitepaper is false or lacks any realistic feasibility Investor returns are sourced not from genuine business revenue but from funds contributed by new investors Accordingly, without legal review at the whitepaper drafting or reference stage, projects may later face liabilities that are extremely difficult to manage or unwind. Issues That Become Critical During Investigations and Trials Investigative authorities and courts do not focus on the technical sophistication of a Bitcoin whitepaper. Instead, the following issues are central: Substance of fund flows: whether investor funds were used as described in the whitepaper, or diverted to pay returns to earlier investors Identification of responsible parties: who actually planned and operated the business, and whether the individual was merely an investor or a de facto operator Existence of return guarantees: whether principal protection or fixed returns were promised, and whether there was any actual capacity to honor such promises Simply asserting that a project “referred to the Bitcoin whitepaper” does not constitute a viable defense. The initial design of the structure and the manner in which it was presented to investors directly translate into legal responsibility. Beginning a response only at the investigation or trial stage is often already too late. In crypto-related fraud cases, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes may apply. Where the amount obtained through deception exceeds KRW 5 billion, punishment may include life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than five years. Where unauthorized fund-raising or multi-level marketing structures are combined with such conduct, enhanced penalties under multiple statutes may apply (see Suwon District Court Decision, Sept. 23, 2022, Case No. 2022No1558). For this reason, legal review by qualified professionals is essential from the business-structure design stage. Why Legal Interpretation of the Bitcoin Whitepaper Is Essential Ultimately, how a Bitcoin whitepaper should be interpreted, and how far it may be reflected in an actual business model, is a quintessential legal judgment. Decent Law Firm conducts an integrated review of: the original intent of the Bitcoin whitepaper the actual business and operational structure fundraising and reward mechanisms regulatory and investigative perspectives Through this approach, we provide not merely isolated advice, but consistent legal support that spans from structural design to dispute resolution and investigation response. Issues surrounding the Bitcoin whitepaper are not matters of technical debate—they are questions of legal liability. This is precisely where the involvement of professionals with substantial experience in virtual asset cases becomes indispensable.
2026-02-02 Naver Blog
