We Resolve Legal Matters
How can we assist you?
Blogs
More-
If 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Legal responses every employer accused of violating the Labor Standards Act must review
Violations of the Labor Standards Act start with “structure,” not “intent” In practice, many employers say, “I didn’t know the law,” or “I was just following common practice.” However, violations of the Labor Standards Act may result in criminal liability once intent is recognized, and ignorance of the law does not exempt an employer from responsibility. In reality, most problems do not stem from bad faith, but from the gap between statutory standards and actual workplace operations. Industry practices, internal customs, or long-standing methods may feel familiar in daily operations, but they can lead to completely different conclusions in legal assessments. In particular, when a business expands without a structured HR and labor management system, small mistakes tend to accumulate and eventually develop into disputes. The party experiencing the greatest anxiety and pressure in this process is often the employer. For those lying awake at night, struggling alone to determine how to respond, this article aims to provide a realistic framework for understanding the situation. One point must be made clear: issues under the Labor Standards Act are never trivial. A misstep in the initial assessment can escalate into full criminal proceedings. Common types of Labor Standards Act violations involving employers Cases that proceed to investigations or litigation show consistent patterns of violation. First, wage-related issues. These include failure to meet minimum wage requirements, misinterpretation of what counts toward wages under Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Minimum Wage Act, and miscalculation of overtime, night work, or holiday work allowances. In particular, many employers use the label “comprehensive wage system” (fixed overtime pay) without satisfying the legal requirements established by case law—such as difficulty in calculating working hours, absence of disadvantage to employees, and explicit or implicit agreement—resulting in frequent legal issues. Second, working hours and break-time management. Situations where attendance records are missing or merely formal, or where break times exist only on paper and employees cannot freely use them, are investigated as violations of Article 54 of the Labor Standards Act (see Supreme Court Decision, July 12, 2018, 2013Da60807, among others). Misunderstandings also frequently arise regarding special industry exceptions under Article 59 of the Act and the written agreement requirements for flexible working-hour systems. Third, disputes over severance pay and continuous service periods. Employers may believe that they created a formal break during contract renewals, but courts assess continuity based on the substance of ongoing employment, not formal interruptions (see Supreme Court en banc Decision, July 11, 1995, 93Da26168). This category also includes cases where the label “freelancer” or “fixed-term employee” does not align with the actual working arrangement. Fourth, violations related to documentation and formal requirements. Failure to prepare or deliver employment contracts, failure to report workplace rules, and omission of mandatory items in wage statements are often treated as simple mistakes, but are clearly regarded as violations during investigations. The real risks employers face when violating the Labor Standards Act Many employers assume the matter will end with an administrative fine, but the reality is different. Labor inspections can begin with corrective orders and escalate into criminal charges. It is not uncommon for a complaint by a single employee to expand into an investigation covering the entire workforce. Under Article 115 of the Labor Standards Act (the joint liability provision), not only the corporation but also the individual representative may be subject to criminal punishment, including the possibility of a criminal record due to fines. That said, if the employer can demonstrate that they exercised substantial care and supervision to prevent violations, exemption from liability may be possible (proviso to Article 115). Beyond this, employers must consider civil claims for retroactive wages or severance pay, damage to business reputation, and the spread of issues into investment and labor risks. Ultimately, a single HR issue can affect the entire business. How Decent Law Office changes the direction of response When an investigation or complaint is initiated, the first thing an employer should do is not to immediately provide statements or submit documents. The priority is to organize the facts, separate legal issues, and establish a response strategy. Internal attendance data, wage structures, and the consistency between contracts and actual practices must be reviewed first. Accordingly, Decent Law Office focuses on building statement strategies for labor inspections, conducting advance reviews of wage, working-hour, and severance structures, and establishing early defenses to minimize criminal risk. The firm also works in coordination with labor and accounting professionals to propose solutions that consider the entire business structure, rather than addressing violations in isolation. Whether Labor Standards Act issues remain a matter of post-incident damage control or are transformed into a preventive management system depends on the initial response. Before finding yourself labeled as an employer in violation of the Labor Standards Act, reviewing your structure and correcting course is the most realistic choice.
-
Referral Marketing: Outcomes Depend on How It Is Conducted
Referral Marketing Is Not Always Illegal Referral marketing originates from the basic marketing concept of “recommendation.” If a service or platform is introduced on a one-time basis and a reward is received accordingly, it may be assessed as legitimate promotional activity. However, referral marketing may raise legal issues if it operates in any of the following ways: A structure in which profits are generated step-by-step and on a continuing basis depending on the referrer’s performance in recruiting downstream members or their trading results; or Monetary transactions occur without any genuine exchange of goods or services; or Funds are solicited while guaranteeing high returns. In such cases, legal issues may arise under the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc. (including multi-level marketing or sponsored door-to-door sales), the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission, or criminal fraud provisions. The key point is that even when the same label—“referral marketing”—is used, legal evaluation can vary significantly depending on how the operation is actually structured. In legal assessments, the crucial factors include whether rewards are paid in stages based on downstream recruitment or trading performance, whether there is a genuine transaction of goods or services, and whether the individual was substantively involved in member recruitment and management. Key Factors That May Lead Referral Marketing to Criminal Liability Whether referral marketing leads to legal sanctions is not determined by a single factor. During investigations and trials, authorities comprehensively examine the following elements: Nature of the Revenue Structure Whether compensation is merely a sign-up bonus, or whether differentiated rewards are paid based on downstream recruitment results, trading volume, or organizational hierarchy, is a critical consideration. The more the structure resembles performance-linked compensation rather than simple referrals, the higher the likelihood of legal scrutiny. Repetition and Continuity of Conduct Authorities assess whether the activity was a one-time introduction or whether the same member recruitment activities were repeated over a long period. Under the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, whether an activity is conducted “as a business” is determined by considering repetition, continuity, and profit motive together. Degree of Involvement After User Acquisition Beyond merely providing a sign-up link, it is important whether the individual substantively participated in explaining the business structure or compensation scheme, recruiting or managing downstream members, or handling inquiries and complaints. If such involvement is established, the scope of liability may expand. Role and Function Within the Overall Structure Regardless of formal titles, authorities comprehensively review the actual functions and roles performed within the organization, such as member recruitment, business explanations or training, downstream organization management, and commission payments. Common Misconceptions in Referral Marketing Cases One of the most common misconceptions is the belief that liability can be avoided simply because the individual did not directly hold or handle funds. However, in cases involving multi-level marketing or sponsored door-to-door sales, authorities focus less on fund custody and more on: The individual’s substantive role within the organization The degree of involvement in member recruitment and management The extent of contribution to operating the compensation structure Another frequent misunderstanding is that using overseas platforms or foreign entities automatically avoids the application of Korean law. In reality, if members are recruited in Korea, business structures are explained to Korean users, or compensation is paid domestically, Korean laws—including the Act on Door-to-Door Sales—may still apply, regardless of the platform’s or entity’s location. Some also believe that modifying the structure or deleting related materials after issues arise will eliminate legal liability. However, in matters involving multi-level marketing or sponsored door-to-door sales, legal responsibility is assessed based on the structure and conduct at the time the acts occurred. Post hoc structural changes or document deletions do not extinguish liability for already completed offenses and may instead give rise to additional legal issues, such as destruction of evidence under Article 155 of the Criminal Act. Decent’s Approach: What to Review Now in Referral Marketing Matters In referral marketing cases, early-stage organization and assessment directly influence future legal outcomes. In particular, the following points should be carefully reviewed: Differentiating roles by specific acts and time periods Organizing facts based on substance rather than form Setting a response strategy before the scope of liability is fixed Understanding how early 대응 impacts final outcomes Referral marketing may appear, on the surface, to be a simple promotional activity. However, actual legal judgments are always based on structure, role, and degree of involvement. Many individuals later find themselves overwhelmed with anxiety, thinking, “I didn’t realize it could become this serious.” If the issue is taken lightly or postponed, it may lead to unexpected legal liability, which should never be ignored. Because it is essential to accurately identify the structure, clarify roles by timeline, and establish a response strategy suited to the current situation, we strongly recommend conducting an early, expert-level review of your circumstances.
