-
BlogsKey Issues in Stock Option Disputes
A Stock Option Lawyer’s Perspective Stock option disputes often turn on the exact wording of the agreement and how the terms were explained at the time of grant. In practice, a single clause—or the absence of one—can lead to disputes worth millions of dollars. Stock options usually begin as an “incentive for talent.” However, when variables such as failed IPOs, resignation or termination, or changes in company valuation arise, stock options quickly become one of the most contentious legal issues in corporate disputes. 1. Why Do Stock Option Disputes Keep Occurring? At their core, stock options are based on future value appreciation. The company promises significant rewards if it grows, and employees commit their efforts based on that expectation. Disputes arise when those expectations diverge. Growth may stall, valuations may decline, or unexpected resignation or dismissal may occur. At that point, one party often claims, “This was not the condition we agreed to.” Common causes of stock option disputes include: Vague or ambiguous contract language open to multiple interpretations Key terms explained verbally but not documented in writing or email No clear rules governing exercisability upon resignation or termination These gaps allow each party to interpret the agreement in their own favor, frequently leading to litigation. 2. Lessons from the Flex Case: Cash-Settled vs. Equity-Settled Stock Options A widely discussed case in the Korean startup ecosystem involving Flex, an HR technology company, highlights the importance of specificity in stock option agreements. The central issue was whether the options were: Equity-settled (physical delivery): Shares are issued upon exercise, or Cash-settled (difference settlement): Only the difference between the exercise price and fair market value is paid in cash Korean law explicitly allows cash-settled structures. Under Article 340-2 of the Korean Commercial Act and Article 16-3 of the Special Act on Venture Business Promotion, companies may compensate the exercise gain in cash or treasury shares equivalent to the price difference. Key legal issues a stock option lawyer examines in such cases: Explicit contractual language: Does the agreement clearly permit cash settlement? If not, courts may presume physical share delivery. Procedural clarity: Are the exercise method and payment mechanics clearly defined? Duty to explain: Did the company adequately explain the structure and risks (including tax implications), and is there documentary evidence such as emails or briefing materials? 3. Tax Risk: Why “Tax Bombs” Occur Tax issues can be as damaging as legal disputes. In many cases, tax authorities impose substantial additional assessments years after the exercise. Valuation disputes: Stock option gains are generally taxed as employment income. For private companies, determining “fair market value” is critical. Even if tax was initially paid based on a low valuation, later discovery of third-party transaction prices may lead to reassessment and retroactive taxation. Loss of tax benefits: Failure to meet venture company tax exemption or deferral requirements in advance may result in losing valuable tax incentives altogether. Without proactive tax planning, compensation can quickly turn into a liability. 4. Group Structures and M&A Complications Legal complexity increases significantly in holding company, subsidiary, or M&A scenarios. Cost allocation issues: When a parent company grants stock options to subsidiary employees, determining who bears the cost—and whether it is tax-deductible—requires careful structuring and internal agreements. IPO failure or M&A scenarios: Many employees rely on “exercisable upon IPO” clauses. If the IPO is canceled or the company is acquired, options may become worthless unless the contract clearly addresses acceleration, succession, or cash compensation. A well-drafted agreement must include a clear exit strategy covering changes in control, failed listings, and acquisition scenarios. 5. Stock Option Lawyers Start with Preventive Design Stock options are not merely an HR matter—they are a core corporate legal issue. Decent Law Firm’s corporate law team advises not only on dispute resolution, but also on preventive legal structuring. Our approach includes: Compliance review: Articles of incorporation, shareholder resolutions, statutory procedures, and registrations Precision drafting: Clear distinction between cash-settled and equity-settled options; detailed rules for voluntary resignation, involuntary termination, and disciplinary actions Contingency planning: Treatment of options in M&A, IPO cancellation, or control changes Tax risk management: Advance analysis of taxation timing and valuation risks Dispute resolution: Legal opinions, contract interpretation, and litigation support in damages claims A well-structured stock option plan and clear explanatory materials serve as proof of a company’s credibility to both talent and investors. With extensive experience from large corporations and in-house legal teams, Decent Law Firm understands internal decision-making structures and real-world business dynamics. For complex stock option issues, Decent Law Firm’s corporate law team provides clear, defensible standards.
2025-12-31 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Promoting Bybit Coin Referrals Is Now Risky — Illegality Concerns Are Real
1. Why Coin Referrals Are Becoming a Serious Legal Issue In recent virtual asset–related investigations, referral structures such as Bybit coin referrals have been repeatedly scrutinized. This trend stems from the clear stance taken by the Financial Services Commission (FSC) and the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). The FIU has consistently emphasized that it is, in principle, illegal for unreported virtual asset service providers (VASPs) to solicit, broker, or intermediate transactions for Korean residents, or to support KRW-based payments. At present, only 27 operators have completed official registration in Korea. If domestic or overseas platforms not included on this list operate Korean-language websites, provide KRW deposits or withdrawals, or conduct promotions targeting Korean users, they face a substantial risk of violating the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information (the “Specified Financial Information Act”). This standard applies equally to overseas exchanges if they target Korean residents. The core issue, however, lies in the lack of a clearly defined boundary as to what constitutes “virtual asset service provider activity.” Because enforcement authorities assess factors such as repetition, fee structures, and the scope of customers on a comprehensive basis, the line between mere personal use and business activity remains blurred. In this environment, investigative risks are rapidly expanding—and coin referral structures have increasingly come under scrutiny. 2. What Bybit’s Recent Announcement Signifies Bybit’s recent official compliance announcement carries significant implications. The exchange made clear its intention to strengthen a global compliance framework aligned with local regulations and to allow marketing, promotion, and user solicitation only in jurisdictions where regulatory requirements are satisfied. With respect to Korea, Bybit explicitly addressed the risks associated with unregistered marketing and intermediary activities, including brokerage-like conduct. It prohibited referral and commission-based structures that specifically target Korean users. Bybit further stated that it is restricting referral and commission-based promotional activities aimed at Korea, and that if such activities are identified, partnership termination and commission clawbacks may follow. This indicates that even overseas exchanges now recognize Korean-targeted referral schemes, such as Bybit coin referrals, as a clear regulatory risk and are beginning to draw firm boundaries. 3. Structures That Law Enforcement Authorities Actually Focus On In practice, referral activities are rarely assessed in isolation. Instead, they are evaluated in conjunction with other transactional structures. For example, when repetitive P2P or OTC transactions are conducted through Telegram or open chat rooms, and a fee structure exists alongside repeated trades, such activity is likely to be classified as “transactions conducted for business purposes.” In several cases, this has led to violations of the Specified Financial Information Act. Similarly, currency exchange structures exploiting the so-called “Kimchi premium” may pose relatively low risk if limited to simple arbitrage. However, when combined with false invoices or quid pro quo remittances, they can give rise to violations of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, the Specified Financial Information Act, and even obstruction of business charges. Within this context, inducing users to open accounts on unregistered overseas exchanges and receiving transaction-volume–linked commissions—such as in Bybit coin referral schemes—may be deemed to involve elements of brokerage, intermediation, or agency, making them potential targets of investigation. Although standalone precedent is limited, cases in which such conduct is combined with investment solicitation or deceptive practices frequently escalate into criminal matters. A single act that was previously taken lightly can be interpreted as a critical link in a serious criminal scheme—this risk should never be underestimated. 4. Decent Law Firm’s Support in Virtual Asset Investigations In Bybit coin referral–related cases, outcomes often hinge on what is properly organized and clarified at the earliest stage. If factors such as transaction frequency and repetition, the existence of a commission structure, the scope of counterparties, awareness of fund sources, and one’s actual role are not systematically analyzed, even a minor matter can expand into allegations of participation in a serious criminal offense. For those facing uncertainty and anxiety at this stage, practical and experience-based legal assistance is essential. Decent Law Firm analyzes key issues by integrating FSC and FIU materials and guidelines, investigative practices, and recent case law, carefully assessing whether a client may be deemed a virtual asset service provider and whether the matter could be linked to other criminal offenses. We provide comprehensive support—from interview and statement strategies at the investigation stage, through warrant proceedings, to substantiation and defense at trial—going beyond advisory services to help design the overall structure of the investigation response. If you have received a request for appearance or are facing a search and seizure, this moment is critical. If you are concerned about issues related to Bybit coin referrals, this is not a matter to be taken lightly. Decent Law Firm’s Virtual Asset Task Force will stand with you throughout the process.
2025-12-30 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Unemployment Benefit Fraud: What You Must Read If You’re Facing Potential Penalties
1. What Is Unemployment Benefit Fraud? The unemployment benefit system is a social security program designed to help workers maintain a minimum standard of living while preparing for reemployment after leaving a job. However, eligibility is restricted if a worker is dismissed for serious misconduct or voluntarily leaves employment without a justifiable reason. The system operates on the premise that eligible recipients receive official “recognition of unemployment” from the head of an employment security office and make sincere efforts to find new employment. Accordingly, the very foundation of the system is considered undermined in the following situations: Failing to report work activity or income despite having earned income Repeating only superficial or formal job-search activities In practice, the key issue in unemployment benefit fraud cases is not whether the recipient claims it was a simple mistake, but how the facts are evaluated. Under Article 47 of the Employment Insurance Act, recipients are required to report any employment during the unemployment recognition period. Concealing employment, failing to report income, or similar conduct is repeatedly deemed as receiving benefits through false or fraudulent means. It has become increasingly difficult to overturn a fraud determination merely by arguing that there was no intent. Administrative authorities and courts comprehensively assess not only the individual’s subjective intent, but also objective conduct, the actual nature of work and income, and the circumstances surrounding the failure to fulfill reporting obligations. 2. Common Types of Cases That Lead to Problems The most frequently identified cases in practice include: Failing to report income from part-time work or freelance activities Working at a business registered under a family member’s or acquaintance’s name Assuming that short-term or irregular income does not need to be reported Falsely processing a resignation by agreement with the employer while continuing to receive wages Although some of these practices are treated as “customary” in certain circles, they clearly constitute unlawful conduct and are legally classified as fraud. During investigations, authorities examine factors such as the form of work, whether compensation was provided, and the continuity of the activity. As a result, many of these cases ultimately lead to penalties for unemployment benefit fraud. 3. What Happens If You Are Caught? Once an issue is identified, an investigation by the employment center typically begins. You will then be asked to provide an explanation, and if fraud is confirmed, not only will the full amount of benefits received be recovered, but additional penalties may also be imposed. Depending on the case, an additional surcharge of up to twice the fraudulently received amount may be imposed (up to five times if there was collusion with the employer). In cases where benefits were obtained through false or fraudulent means, criminal liability may also arise (Article 62(2) of the Employment Insurance Act). In particular, if the employer was involved in the scheme, penalties can include up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 50 million (Article 116(1)(2) and (2)(2) of the Employment Insurance Act). The critical point is that this issue may not end as a mere administrative matter. Depending on how the facts are assessed, it can escalate into criminal proceedings. Unemployment benefit fraud penalties should never be taken lightly. The assumption that “this probably won’t be a problem” is often the most dangerous decision. 4. If You Have Been Contacted for an Investigation — and How Decent Law Firm Can Help If you proceed with statements before properly organizing the facts, you may place yourself at a significant disadvantage. However, if a recipient voluntarily reports the issue before an investigation begins, additional penalties may be waived under Article 105(4) of the Enforcement Rules of the Employment Insurance Act. Moreover, the consistency and sincerity of your explanation can significantly affect the level of sanctions imposed. For those lying awake at night worrying about this issue, it is important to understand that the decisions you make and the way you respond at this very moment can shape the direction of your future. Conversely, ignoring the issue or responding carelessly can lead to irreversible consequences, such as restrictions on future unemployment benefits or a criminal record. Decent Law Firm has advised clients on unemployment benefit fraud matters where intent is ambiguous, where the existence of employment or income is disputed, and where the possibility of criminal proceedings has already been raised, helping them develop response strategies from the earliest stage. In this area, early judgment and response determine the outcome. Rather than trying to handle this alone, it is crucial to recognize that this is the point at which proper legal review and guidance are necessary.
2025-12-30 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Major Industrial Accident Liability: Legal Risks Companies Must Rigorously Assess
What Is a Serious Industrial Accident? A “serious industrial accident” is premised on an industrial accident as defined under Article 2(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Accordingly, an incident that does not qualify as an industrial accident under that Act cannot be recognized as a serious industrial accident under the Serious Accidents Punishment Act. The Serious Accidents Punishment Act applies only when specific statutory requirements are met. The representative criteria are as follows: One or more fatalities; Two or more persons injured in the same accident who require medical treatment for at least six months; or Three or more persons diagnosed within one year with occupational diseases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as acute poisoning caused by the same hazardous factor. An important point to note is that the victims are not required to be “employees” in the strict sense. The Act covers all “workers” who provide labor, regardless of the contractual form, including subcontracting, outsourcing, or consignment arrangements. In practice, accidents that frequently give rise to issues include falls, crushing or entrapment accidents, collapses, and overturning incidents. Even if an accident appears to be a simple safety incident on its face, it may still be classified as a serious industrial accident if the statutory requirements are satisfied. While not every accident constitutes a serious industrial accident, the assumption that “this level of accident will be fine” can itself lead to significant legal risk. Key Risk Areas for Companies and Executive Management One of the most common misconceptions in serious industrial accident cases is the belief that liability ends at the level of on-site managers. In reality, investigations and trials focus on whether the business owner or executive management fulfilled their obligations to ensure safety and health under Articles 4 or 5 of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act. A particularly critical issue is the effectiveness of the safety management system. Even where safety manuals and internal regulations formally exist, failure to ensure that they function in practice can be evaluated as an adverse factor. If a safety and health management system exists only on paper, or if training and inspections are conducted in a merely formal or perfunctory manner, this may be deemed a failure to fulfill the statutory duty to secure safety and health under Article 4. In such cases, the existence of documentation alone can actually serve as unfavorable evidence demonstrating non-compliance. Where a business owner or executive management violates Articles 4 or 5 and causes a serious industrial accident resulting in one or more deaths, they may be subject to imprisonment for at least one year or a fine of up to KRW 1 billion, or both. In addition, the corporation or institution itself may be fined up to KRW 5 billion (Articles 6 and 7 of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act). Mandatory Actions Immediately After an Accident Occurs In serious industrial accident cases, the company’s response in the immediate aftermath often determines the outcome. Key considerations include: Organizing internal reporting and statement procedures; Separating internal investigations from external criminal investigations; Managing employee statements appropriately; Exercising caution when responding to the media, the Ministry of Employment and Labor, and the police. When a serious industrial accident occurs, the business owner must immediately suspend the relevant work, evacuate workers from the site, and take all necessary measures to ensure safety and health. In addition, the occurrence of the accident must be reported without delay to the Minister of Employment and Labor. Whether these initial measures were appropriate is a key factor in determining, during subsequent investigations and trials, whether executive management fulfilled their duty to secure safety and health. In practice, decisions made during the first few hours often shape the entire course of the investigation. It is essential to recognize that well-intentioned but ill-considered actions can, in some cases, increase legal liability rather than mitigate it. Decent Law Firm’s Support – Post-Incident Response and Preventive Measures Decent Law Firm does not limit its role in serious industrial accident cases to post-incident criminal defense. Our support includes: Criminal investigation 대응 and defense against criminal liability; Review and diagnosis of safety management systems and legal risk exposure; Development, revision, and verification of implementation of manuals, training programs, and internal regulations; Advisory services aimed at preventing the recurrence of similar accidents. The core of serious industrial accident 대응 lies not in one-time defensive measures, but in building a structure that can prevent recurrence. Even after an incident, Decent focuses on establishing sustainable compliance frameworks that meaningfully reduce the company’s long-term legal and operational burden. Before it is too late, we encourage you to seek assistance from experienced professionals.
2025-12-25 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Recovery Strategies Every Blockchain Scam Victim Must Know
Why Blockchain Scams Cause Such Severe Damage Unlike conventional financial fraud, blockchain scams are rooted in the abuse of technological characteristics. Due to the inherent nature of blockchain technology, once a virtual asset transaction is completed, it is technically irreversible. This non-reversible structure makes post-incident recovery extremely difficult. When overseas exchanges or foreign wallets are involved, jurisdictional issues further complicate the situation, significantly raising the difficulty of any legal or practical response. A major problem is that many victims mistakenly perceive these cases as mere investment losses. Technical jargon such as whitepapers, smart contracts, and algorithms is often used to disguise intentional deception, causing victims to miss the critical window for effective action. In practice, early response timing plays a decisive role in determining whether meaningful recovery is possible in blockchain fraud cases. For those already experiencing anxiety and fear due to such losses, we hope this guide helps provide some clarity and direction. Common Types of Blockchain Scams (From the Victim’s Perspective) In practice, blockchain scams tend to follow recurring patterns: Fraud disguised as coin investments or private sales Schemes posing as crypto loans, staking programs, or yield products Fake exchanges, wallets, or phishing sites designed to steal login credentials or assets Signal groups, automated trading services, or guaranteed-profit schemes The critical issue is distinguishing between ordinary investment risk and losses caused by deceptive conduct. This distinction directly affects whether criminal fraud charges may be established and whether civil liability for damages can be pursued. If this assessment is incorrect, the entire response strategy may be fundamentally misguided. Immediate Actions to Take Once You Recognize the Fraud If fraud is suspected, the first step is to immediately stop any further transactions, change passwords for all related accounts, and prevent secondary damage. At the same time, evidence preservation is the highest priority. You must securely retain and back up original materials, including transaction hashes, wallet addresses, screenshots and original files of Telegram, KakaoTalk, or email communications, website URLs and whitepapers provided by the counterparty, contracts, and transfer records. Failure at this stage can create decisive limitations in both criminal and civil proceedings later on. You may request withdrawal freezes from virtual asset service providers (exchanges), ask investigative authorities to suspend payments related to fraudulent accounts, and consider filing a report under the Act on the Prevention of Telecommunications-Based Financial Fraud and Refund of Damage Proceeds. The earlier the response, the greater the possibility of practical measures being taken. Waiting passively only reduces the available options—active intervention is essential. How Decent Law Firm Makes a Practical Difference Blockchain scam cases cannot be resolved simply by filing a criminal complaint. They require a coordinated strategy that integrates structural analysis of the scam, clear legal issue identification, and parallel criminal and civil actions. Decent Law Firm conducts in-depth reviews of transaction flows and technical structures to precisely assess whether fraud is legally established, and prepares structured criminal complaints and legal memoranda for submission to investigative authorities. We also develop realistic, case-specific strategies involving exchanges, overseas platforms, and potential civil recovery depending on the feasibility of identifying the perpetrators. Ultimately, blockchain scams are not merely technical issues—they are problems of legal structure and accountability. If damage has already occurred, it is crucial not to proceed alone. Early, accurate legal intervention is the most effective way to define the proper course of action. In blockchain fraud cases, speed and precision make a tangible difference. We strongly encourage you to prepare and act without further delay.
2025-12-25 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Korea’s AI Basic Act: Key Compliance Checkpoints for AI Businesses
The public notice period for the Enforcement Decree of the “Framework Act on the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence and Establishment of Trust” (hereinafter the 'AI Basic Act') concluded on December 22, 2025. With the Act set to take effect on January 22, 2026, the South Korean government has finalized the institutional framework. For AI service providers, these regulations are not merely post-launch checklists but essential specifications that must be integrated from the initial planning and design stages. 1. Labeling Obligations for Generative AI and UX Integration Transparency requirements under Article 31 of the AI Basic Act have been further refined through the Enforcement Decree. Labeling Methods: Providers must choose between a "Human-Perceptible Format" (visible text/watermarks) and a "Machine-Readable Format" (C2PA, metadata, etc.) to identify AI-generated content. Mandatory Notification: Even when adopting machine-readable formats, providers are obligated to notify users at least once via text or audio prompts. Avoidance of Double Regulation: If content (e.g., deepfakes) has already been labeled in accordance with other relevant laws, it may be exempt from redundant labeling duties under this Act. Practical Impact: This is not a simple notification task; it directly impacts UX/UI design. Legal reviews should be conducted during the design phase to avoid the prohibitive costs of post-launch modifications. 2. High-Impact AI Confirmation and Launch Risk Management The Act defines "High-Impact AI" as systems that significantly affect human life, physical safety, or fundamental rights (e.g., healthcare, transportation, recruitment, credit scoring, etc.). Confirmation Procedure: Businesses can apply to the Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) to confirm whether their service qualifies as "High-Impact AI." The government must respond within 60 days (30 days + a possible 30-day extension). Business Risk: The government's response timeline is a critical variable for service launch schedules. If a service is retroactively classified as High-Impact AI, the provider may face the risk of redesigning the entire system architecture to meet enhanced safety standards. 3. Integration with the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) The Enforcement Decree reflects efforts to resolve overlapping regulations with the existing PIPA. Deemed Compliance: If a business faithfully fulfills its obligations under PIPA, it is deemed to have satisfied the safety and reliability requirements of the AI Basic Act regarding the processing of personal information. Limitations: Note that this "deemed compliance" applies only to personal data processing. Obligations regarding algorithm transparency and accountability for AI outputs must still be addressed separately under the AI Basic Act. 4. Post-Management Accountability: 5-Year Data Retention & Domestic Agents The Decree formalizes accountability measures to verify regulatory compliance. Record-Keeping: Documents including risk management plans, explanation protocols, and user protection measures must be retained for 5 years. These serve as crucial evidence during disputes or regulatory investigations. Domestic Agent Appointment: Overseas AI providers are now explicitly required to appoint a domestic agent in Korea. Domestic companies utilizing APIs from global Big Tech firms must also conduct supply-chain compliance checks. 5. Safety Obligations for Large-Scale AI Models (High-Compute AI) The Decree imposes obligations to establish risk identification and management systems for developers of large-scale AI models with cumulative training computation exceeding $10^{26}$ FLOPs. Domestic businesses providing services based on these hyper-scale models must also review the legal structure of liability and risk-sharing. Conclusion: A 1-Year Grace Period, but the Time to Prepare is Now The government intends to provide a one-year grace period following the enforcement of the Act. However, given the nature of the AI industry, reactive adjustments can lead to immense technical costs and legal exposure. Enterprises must now view "Compliance by Design" as a core element of their service, moving beyond mere technological development. We recommend a thorough diagnostic of whether your services fall under the "High-Impact" or "Generative AI" categories to ensure full readiness by the enforcement date. DECENT Law Firm provides tailored legal counsel and solutions to navigate the evolving regulatory landscape of the AI industry. If you require a detailed review or a compliance audit, please contact us.
2025-12-24 Naver Blog
