We Resolve Legal Matters
How can we assist you?
Blogs
More-
Police Request to Appear by Phone in Korea: What to Check Before a Suspect Interview
If you receive a call from the police asking you to appear for questioning, one of the first things to confirm is whether you are being contacted as a criminal suspect or as a witness or other person involved in the case. A police request to appear does not always arrive as a written notice. Under Korea’s current investigation rules, a written request is generally used, but a request may also be made by phone, text message, or another appropriate method where prompt contact is necessary or other circumstances justify doing so. The current rules took effect on July 1, 2026. Rather than ignoring the call or immediately discussing the substance of the case, it is important to first identify the case involved, your procedural status, the investigating officer, and the proposed interview schedule. Can the Police Ask You to Appear by Phone? Yes. A police request to appear may be made by phone or text message in certain circumstances. Article 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides the legal basis for requesting a criminal suspect to appear for questioning where necessary for an investigation. The specific method of requesting an appearance is governed by Article 19 of the Regulation on Mutual Cooperation Between Prosecutors and Judicial Police Officers and General Rules for Investigation. As a general rule, a written request stating the purpose of the appearance, including the substance of the suspected offense, should be sent. However, where prompt contact is required or other unavoidable circumstances exist, the request may instead be made by telephone, text message, or another appropriate method. Accordingly, a police call should not be disregarded simply because no written notice has been received. The more important first step is to identify which police station and officer are handling the matter, what case the request concerns, and in what capacity you are being asked to appear. Why Should You First Confirm Whether You Are a Suspect? Because your legal position and the purpose of the interview differ depending on whether you are a suspect or a person being questioned in connection with someone else’s case. A criminal suspect is a person who is under investigation for a suspected criminal offense. Article 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act governs requests for a suspect to appear for questioning. By contrast, Article 221 permits investigators to request the appearance of a person other than the suspect where his or her statement is necessary for an investigation. This may include a victim, witness, or another person connected to the case. The fact that both may receive a call asking them to come to a police station does not mean their procedural positions are the same. If you are being questioned as a suspect, the police may ask questions directly concerning the alleged offense, and statements made during the interview may become important evidence as the investigation proceeds. Before interrogating a suspect, investigators must also inform the suspect of certain rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to assistance of counsel, as provided under Article 244-3 of the Criminal Procedure Act. For this reason, if you receive a request to appear, it is generally advisable to first determine your procedural status and the nature of the case before giving a lengthy explanation of your position over the phone. What Should You Check When the Police Call? After confirming whether you are a suspect, you should identify the basic information necessary to understand and prepare for the investigation. You will not necessarily be given access over the phone to the complainant’s statements, evidence collected by investigators, or the complete investigation record. However, you should generally try to identify the basic circumstances of the request before simply agreeing to an interview date. What to Check Why It Matters Police station, division, and investigating officer Confirms the investigating authority and contact details Whether you are a suspect or another person involved Clarifies your procedural status Case or alleged offense involved Helps identify the subject of the investigation Date, time, and place of interview Allows you to prepare and coordinate your schedule Whether a written request has been or will be sent Allows you to review any information provided in writing If the call itself appears suspicious, you may verify the officer and department through the police station’s official contact information rather than relying solely on the telephone number provided by the caller. Can You Ask to Change the Interview Date? Yes. If you have a legitimate scheduling issue, you may ask the investigating officer to adjust the date and time. Article 19 of the investigation rules requires investigators to provide sufficient time when requesting a suspect’s appearance so as not to unnecessarily interfere with the suspect’s livelihood. The rules also provide for coordination of the interview date and place and, absent special circumstances, adjustment of the date where the suspect requests a postponement. Accordingly, if you cannot attend because of work, travel, or another legitimate reason, it is generally preferable to explain the situation to the investigating officer in advance and arrange another date. This should be distinguished from simply ignoring the request. Under Article 200-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person committed an offense and the suspect fails to comply with a request to appear without justifiable cause, or there is reason to believe the suspect will not comply, an arrest warrant may become an issue if the statutory requirements are otherwise met. This does not mean that missing a single requested appearance automatically results in arrest. The relevant circumstances and statutory requirements must be considered. What Should You Prepare Before a Police Interview as a Suspect? If you have confirmed that you are being investigated as a suspect, you should review the relevant facts and objective evidence before the interview. A useful starting point is to organize the events chronologically and distinguish between: the conduct or facts being questioned by the police; what actually happened and in what sequence; your role and actions; objective evidence such as contracts, bank records, transfers, emails, or messages; points on which the other party’s account differs from yours; and matters that may require further explanation. For example, if the case concerns money or a contractual relationship, relevant agreements, bank records, and payment records should be reviewed together. If messages or online communications are at issue, individual statements should generally be considered together with the surrounding conversation and context rather than in isolation. You should also avoid guessing when your memory is unclear or altering or deleting existing materials in an attempt to prepare for questioning. Under Article 243-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a suspect may request the participation of defense counsel during interrogation, and counsel must generally be permitted to participate unless there is good cause to restrict participation. The official English translation refers to Article 243-2 as “Defense Counsel’s Participation.” Where the allegations are disputed, the parties provide materially different accounts, or the case involves extensive documents or transaction records, reviewing the facts and key legal issues before the first interview can be particularly important. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Q1. How can I verify that the person calling me is actually a police officer? You can contact the relevant police station through its official contact information and confirm the officer’s name and department. Particular caution is warranted if someone claiming to be an investigator asks you to install an application, transfer money, or take other unusual financial actions. Q2. What if the police will not explain the case in detail over the phone? You should not expect the complete investigation record or all evidence collected by investigators to be disclosed during an initial phone call. However, you may ask for basic information necessary to understand the request, including whether you are being contacted as a suspect and what case or alleged conduct the interview concerns. Q3. Do I need to explain my position on the case during the initial phone call? No. A call made to arrange your appearance does not ordinarily require you to provide a complete substantive statement about the case. If you are a suspect, it may be preferable to first understand the allegations and review the relevant records rather than giving an extended account based solely on memory before the formal interview. Q4. Can a lawyer accompany me to a police interview? Yes. A criminal suspect may request the participation of defense counsel during police questioning. Article 243-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that, upon a qualifying request, defense counsel should be permitted to participate in the interrogation unless there is good cause otherwise. Preparing Before a Police Interview Can Be Critical A police request to appear may be made in writing or, in certain circumstances, by telephone or text message. If you receive such a request, first determine whether you are being investigated as a suspect, what case the request concerns, who the investigating officer is, and when and where the interview is scheduled. If you are a suspect, it is important to review the sequence of events and relevant evidence before the first interview and identify any factual or legal issues that may require careful explanation. Decent Law Firm assists clients in criminal investigations by reviewing the relevant facts and evidence, identifying key issues before police questioning, and providing legal representation during suspect interviews.
-
Crypto Transfers to Self-Hosted Wallets: What Changes Under Korea’s Travel Rule in 2027?
Transfers from a Korean crypto exchange to a self-hosted wallet (personal wallet) such as MetaMask are not currently treated in the same way as Travel Rule transfers between virtual asset service providers (VASPs). However, following the August 2026 amendment to the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information, Korea will strengthen its AML requirements for virtual asset transfers. From February 19, 2027, the KRW 1 million threshold for the Travel Rule will be removed, and transactions involving overseas VASPs and self-hosted wallets will also become subject to separate risk-based AML requirements. For self-hosted wallet transactions, factors such as who actually owns or controls the wallet, whether the sender and recipient are the same person, the purpose of the transaction, and the flow of funds will become increasingly important. Does the Travel Rule Apply to Transfers to Self-Hosted Wallets? A transfer to a self-hosted wallet is not currently treated in the same way as a Travel Rule transfer between VASPs. Under Korea’s current Travel Rule framework, when a VASP transfers virtual assets worth KRW 1 million or more to another VASP, specified information regarding the sender and recipient must be provided. A self-hosted wallet such as MetaMask, however, is controlled directly by the user and is not itself a Korean VASP. Accordingly, withdrawals to self-hosted wallets should be reviewed not only from a Travel Rule perspective but also in light of the exchange’s AML obligations and wallet verification policies. Depending on the exchange, users may already be required to register a wallet address or verify ownership before making a withdrawal. Official Legislation Enforcement Decree of the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information What Will Change for Self-Hosted Wallet Transactions in 2027? From February 19, 2027, virtual asset transfers involving self-hosted wallets will become subject to enhanced risk-based AML controls. The amended Enforcement Decree expands the obligations imposed on VASPs in connection with virtual asset transfers. The Financial Services Commission (FSC) has outlined the following regulatory approach. 🔹 Self-Hosted Wallet and Overseas VASP Transactions from 2027 Transaction Type Expected Regulatory Approach Low-risk overseas VASP Virtual asset transfers generally permitted Other overseas VASPs Generally permitted where the sender and recipient are the same person Self-hosted wallet Generally permitted where the sender and recipient are the same person High-risk transaction Transfer may be restricted or prohibited Transactions of KRW 10 million or more involving overseas VASPs or self-hosted wallets A separate suspicious transaction monitoring framework must be established and operated Accordingly, a withdrawal to a wallet controlled by the customer may be treated differently from a direct withdrawal to a wallet controlled by a third party. However, the detailed risk-assessment standards and implementation methods will need to be reviewed together with the relevant KoFIU regulations and the policies of individual exchanges. Official Source Financial Services Commission – August 11, 2026 What About Deposits from a Self-Hosted Wallet to a Korean Exchange? Deposits from a self-hosted wallet to a Korean exchange may also be subject to review. The amended framework covers transactions in which a VASP transfers virtual assets to, or receives virtual assets from, a self-hosted wallet. Accordingly, when virtual assets are deposited from a self-hosted wallet into a Korean exchange, factors such as the actual wallet owner, the source of funds, and the purpose of the transaction may become important. Where assets are repeatedly deposited from multiple wallets, it is advisable to retain transaction records showing the source and movement of the assets. Can the Travel Rule Be Avoided by Splitting Transfers Below KRW 1 Million? No. Splitting transfers into amounts below KRW 1 million does not place the transactions outside AML scrutiny. The current Travel Rule threshold for VASP-to-VASP transfers is KRW 1 million. From February 19, 2027, this threshold will be removed and the Travel Rule will apply regardless of the transfer amount. Even under the current framework, transactions below KRW 1 million are not automatically excluded from AML monitoring. The FSC has cited a case involving approximately KRW 200 million in virtual assets that was withdrawn through 216 separate transactions below KRW 1 million as an example of activity potentially intended to circumvent regulatory controls. Accordingly, factors such as repeated split transfers, wallet ownership, the source and movement of funds, and the purpose of the transaction may also be reviewed. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Q1. Does the Travel Rule apply when I withdraw crypto to MetaMask? Not in the same manner as a transfer between two registered Korean VASPs under the current framework. However, exchange-specific wallet verification and AML requirements may still apply. From February 19, 2027, self-hosted wallet transactions will also become subject to enhanced risk-based AML controls. Q2. Can I withdraw less than KRW 1 million to a self-hosted wallet without restrictions? A transaction below KRW 1 million is not automatically excluded from AML monitoring. Repeated small withdrawals or transactions involving multiple wallets may still be reviewed based on the overall transaction pattern. In addition, the KRW 1 million Travel Rule threshold between VASPs will be removed from February 19, 2027. Q3. Will transfers to another person’s self-hosted wallet be prohibited? Not necessarily. A blanket prohibition on all transfers to third-party wallets has not been established. However, the Financial Services Commission has indicated that transactions involving self-hosted wallets will generally be permitted where the sender and recipient are the same person. The detailed scope of permitted transactions and exceptions will depend on implementing regulations and individual exchange policies. Q4. Will deposits from a self-hosted wallet to a Korean exchange also be subject to enhanced controls? Yes. The new framework applies not only to withdrawals but also to situations where a VASP receives virtual assets from a self-hosted wallet. The exchange may therefore review wallet ownership, transaction history, source of funds, and the purpose of the transfer. Q5. Does a transaction of KRW 10 million or more automatically trigger a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR)? No. A transaction does not automatically become reportable solely because it exceeds KRW 10 million. The announced framework requires VASPs to establish and operate a separate monitoring system for transactions of KRW 10 million or more involving overseas exchanges or self-hosted wallets. Whether an STR is ultimately required depends on the specific circumstances, including the source of funds, transaction purpose, transaction pattern, and counterparty. Prepare for the New Self-Hosted Wallet Rules Before February 2027 From February 19, 2027, Korea’s Travel Rule will apply to all transfers between VASPs regardless of amount, while risk-based AML controls for transactions involving self-hosted wallets and overseas VASPs will also be strengthened. For self-hosted wallet transactions, actual wallet ownership and control, whether the sender and recipient are the same person, the purpose of the transaction, and the flow of funds may become increasingly important. Businesses that use self-hosted wallets or overseas exchanges for recurring payments, transfers, or settlement should review their transaction structures and applicable regulatory requirements before the new rules take effect. Decent Law Firm advises clients on Korean virtual asset regulations, self-hosted wallet and overseas VASP transactions, Travel Rule compliance, and AML obligations under the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information.
-
Crypto Market Making in Korea: Legal Risks for Token Projects and Market Makers
Crypto market making is not automatically considered market manipulation under Korean law. However, the legal analysis does not stop at whether an agreement is labeled as a “market making” or “liquidity provision” arrangement. The key issue is how the trading strategy is actually structured and executed—particularly whether it is designed to artificially create trading volume, influence prices, or induce other investors to trade. For foreign token projects, foundations, and market makers engaging with Korean exchanges or Korean users, this means that the Market Making Agreement, trading instructions, API logic, token lending structure, and fee arrangements should be reviewed together. What Is Crypto Market Making? Crypto market making generally refers to the continuous placement of buy and sell orders in order to provide liquidity to a trading market. For newly listed or relatively illiquid virtual assets, limited order-book depth may result in wide bid-ask spreads and significant price movements even from relatively small orders. To address this, a token project may provide tokens or capital to a professional market maker, which then places buy and sell orders on one or more exchanges. A typical market making arrangement may include provisions concerning: Target exchanges and trading pairs Bid-ask spreads Liquidity or volume requirements Token lending and return arrangements Trading capital Service fees and performance-based compensation API or algorithmic trading systems The important point is that entering into a Market Making Agreement does not determine the legal characterization of the actual trading activity. What matters is how those contractual terms are implemented in the market. Is Crypto Market Making Legal in Korea? Crypto market making is not unlawful merely because liquidity is being provided to the market. However, actual trading activity may fall within Korea’s prohibition on unfair trading if it is intended to induce other investors to trade or to artificially influence trading volume or prices. Article 10 of Korea’s Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users prohibits, among other conduct: Matched orders Wash trades Transactions designed to create a false appearance of active trading Transactions intended to artificially move or stabilize the price of a virtual asset Other fraudulent or deceptive trading practices Accordingly, describing a trading arrangement as “liquidity provision” is not sufficient. The actual analysis may require reviewing: Who determines the trading strategy Whether specific price or volume targets are imposed Whether the token project participates in or directs trading decisions Whether the market maker’s compensation is linked to price or volume performance How orders, cancellations, and executions actually occur The distinction between legitimate liquidity provision and unlawful market manipulation therefore depends heavily on the purpose and structure of the actual trading activity. Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users – Article 10 What Market Making Structures May Create Higher Regulatory Risk? Market manipulation risk may increase where a market making arrangement goes beyond providing ordinary liquidity and instead seeks to artificially create a particular level of trading activity or price. 🔹Key Market Making Terms to Review Structure Key Legal Issue Minimum trading volume Whether volume is being artificially generated regardless of genuine market demand Target price Whether trading is intended to push the token toward a specified price Price floor or price band Whether the strategy constitutes ordinary liquidity provision or artificial price stabilization Repeated high-priced purchases Whether orders are intended to induce additional buying by other investors Multiple trading accounts Whether economically identical parties are trading against each other API trading How orders, cancellations, and re-orders are triggered Token lending How the market maker may use or dispose of the tokens and how they must be returned Performance fees Whether compensation is directly tied to price appreciation or increased trading volume A contractual requirement to maintain liquidity or a certain spread does not, by itself, establish unlawful conduct. The analysis may change, however, where the actual strategy involves repeated trades unrelated to genuine market demand, artificial volume generation, or continuous buying designed to defend a specific token price. The contractual KPI and the actual trading strategy should therefore be reviewed together. Can API or Algorithmic Market Making Create Market Manipulation Risk? The use of APIs or automated trading systems does not itself constitute market manipulation. Automated order placement is commonly used in market making because market makers must respond quickly to changing order-book conditions. The legal issue is what type of trading strategy has been automated. Additional review may be required where an automated strategy involves, for example: Repeated high-priced purchases Large orders followed by rapid cancellations Multiple accounts placing coordinated orders Repeated trades designed primarily to generate volume Orders designed to influence prices across multiple exchanges In July 2026, the Korean Financial Services Commission disclosed enforcement cases involving virtual asset market manipulation using high-frequency API trading, high-priced purchases, and manipulative order strategies. The significance of these cases is not that API trading itself is prohibited, but that the purpose, order pattern, and resulting market impact of the trading activity are subject to scrutiny. FSC – Key Results of Virtual Asset Unfair Trading Investigations What Should Be Reviewed in a Market Making Agreement? A Market Making Agreement should be reviewed not only for commercial terms, but also for how those terms may influence actual trading behavior. Trading Volume Requirements Where daily or weekly trading volume targets are imposed, the key issue is not simply the existence of a target. The review should determine how the market maker is expected to achieve the required volume and whether the strategy may result in transactions unrelated to genuine market demand. Price-Related Conditions Terms such as “maintain the price above a certain level,” “defend against price declines,” or “reach a target price” require particular attention. Ordinary spread management and trading intended to artificially maintain or influence a specific market price should not be treated as the same activity. Token Lending and Return Where a project provides a significant number of tokens to the market maker, the agreement should clearly address: Permitted use of the tokens Disposal authority Return obligations Settlement mechanics Allocation of trading profits and losses Performance Fees and Trading Authority Performance-based compensation should also be examined, particularly where fees are linked directly to token price appreciation or trading volume. In addition, even where the written agreement gives the market maker independent trading authority, actual instructions sent through Telegram, Slack, email, or other channels may become relevant if the project is directing specific price or volume outcomes. Is Reviewing the Market Making Agreement Alone Sufficient? No. The agreement and the actual operating structure should be reviewed together. A contract may simply refer to “liquidity enhancement,” “spread maintenance,” or “market making services.” Actual communications or trading instructions, however, may contain materially different expectations concerning price support or volume generation. For this reason, a legal review may need to cover not only the agreement itself but also: Market Making Agreement and side letters Internal operating guidelines and KPIs Exchange order and execution records API logic and trading parameters Trading-account structure Token and fund transfers Telegram, Slack, email, and other trading instructions Fee and performance compensation arrangements The key issue is not only what the contract says, but how the contractual terms are implemented through actual orders and executions. Do Korean Rules Apply to an Offshore Market Maker? Using an offshore market maker does not automatically exclude the application of Korean law. Article 3 of the Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users provides for extraterritorial application where conduct outside Korea produces effects within Korea. Accordingly, Korean regulatory exposure should be considered where, for example: Market making is performed on a Korean exchange A token is listed on both Korean and overseas exchanges Trading on an offshore exchange is used to influence the Korean market A Korean project directs an offshore market maker regarding price or volume Korean regulators have also investigated cases involving virtual assets listed simultaneously on Korean and foreign exchanges where trading activity across markets was allegedly used to influence Korean investors. Depending on the exact scope of services, it may also be necessary to consider whether the market maker’s activities raise separate issues under Korea’s virtual asset service provider regulatory framework. Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users What Should Be Reviewed Before Entering into a Market Making Arrangement? Before entering into a Market Making Agreement, the project and market maker should align the contractual terms with the anticipated trading structure. 1. Roles and Trading Authority Determine who establishes the trading strategy and who has authority to execute orders. 2. Price and Volume KPIs Review whether spread, liquidity, volume, or price-related KPIs may require problematic trading behavior in practice. 3. Token and Fund Flows Map how tokens and trading capital move from the project to the market maker and ultimately to exchange accounts. 4. Trading Method Determine whether trading will be manual, API-based, or algorithmic, and whether multiple accounts or exchanges will be used. 5. Compensation Structure Assess whether compensation is simply payment for liquidity services or is directly tied to price appreciation or increased trading volume. The relevant contracts, order logs, API records, internal instructions, and token transfer records should also be retained appropriately. These materials may become important if the trading activity is later reviewed by an exchange, regulator, or investigative authority. What Are the Consequences of Market Manipulation in Korea? Market manipulation involving virtual assets may lead to administrative sanctions, criminal liability, and civil damages. The Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users provides for monetary penalties in relation to unfair trading conduct and criminal penalties for violations of Article 10. The severity of sanctions may vary depending on factors including the amount of unlawful profit or avoided loss. The Financial Services Commission announced in July 2026 that, during the first two years following implementation of the Act, Korean authorities had completed approximately 40 unfair-trading investigations and referred or reported more than 30 cases to investigative authorities. Accordingly, market making structures should not be reviewed only after an enforcement issue arises. Potential unfair-trading exposure should be assessed at the contract and trading-structure stage. FSC – Key Results and Future Plans for Virtual Asset Unfair Trading Investigations Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Q1. Is using a crypto market maker illegal in Korea? No. The use of a market maker does not itself establish market manipulation. The actual trading strategy, purpose, project involvement, and price or volume conditions must be reviewed. Q2. Can a Market Making Agreement require a minimum trading volume? A minimum volume requirement is not automatically unlawful. However, if the target is achieved through transactions intended to create an artificial appearance of active trading, the arrangement may raise unfair-trading concerns. Q3. Can a project ask a market maker to maintain a minimum token price? Price-support or price-floor arrangements require particular caution. Korean law prohibits certain transactions conducted for the purpose of inducing other investors to trade by artificially moving or stabilizing the market price. Q4. Is API-based market making considered market manipulation? No. The use of an API itself is not prohibited. The relevant issue is whether the automated strategy is designed to artificially generate volume, influence prices, or induce other investors to trade. Q5. Does Korean law apply to foreign market makers? It may. Where offshore trading produces effects in Korea, including through Korean exchange markets or Korean investors, the potential application of Korean virtual asset regulations should be reviewed. Market Making in Korea Requires More Than Contract Review The central legal issue in crypto market making is not whether a contract describes the activity as “liquidity provision.” The key questions are how orders are actually generated, what objectives the project gives to the market maker, and what price and trading volume are ultimately created by the strategy. Where price targets, volume KPIs, API trading, token lending, and performance compensation are combined, the legal analysis should cover both the written agreement and the actual operating structure.
-
Commercial Lease and Change of Use in Korea: Can the Lease Be Terminated If Business Operations Are Not Permitted?
A tenant may sign a commercial lease intending to operate a restaurant, café, convenience store, academy, or other specific business, only to later discover that the premises cannot legally be used for that purpose. This may occur because the building’s registered use does not permit the intended business, the required change of use cannot be approved, or separate business licensing requirements cannot be satisfied. In such cases, the landlord is not automatically liable simply because the change of use is unsuccessful. Whether the tenant may terminate the lease, recover the security deposit, or claim damages depends on factors such as the agreed purpose of the lease, the reason the intended business cannot operate, any contractual allocation of responsibility for permits and change-of-use procedures, and the representations made by the landlord before the lease was signed. Contents When a Change of Use Is Required What to Check Before Signing a Commercial Lease Landlord Liability When a Change of Use Is Not Possible Lease Termination and Return of the Security Deposit Damages for Interior and Business Preparation Costs Recommended Commercial Lease Clauses Frequently Asked Questions Key Takeaways on Commercial Leases and Change of Use 1. When Is a Change of Use Required for Commercial Premises? If the current registered use of a building differs from the tenant’s intended use, it is necessary to determine whether a change-of-use procedure is required under the Korean Building Act. Article 19 of the Building Act requires a building whose use is changed to comply with the building standards applicable to the intended new use. Depending on the type of change, approval, reporting, or an application to amend the building register may be required. [Article 19 of the Building Act – Change of Use] However, a change of use under the Building Act and a business-specific license or registration are separate legal issues. Even if the registered building use can be changed, the premises may still fail to satisfy requirements applicable to a restaurant, academy, or other regulated business. A prospective tenant should therefore confirm not only the current use shown on the building register but also whether the intended business can legally operate at the premises. 2. What Should Be Checked Before Signing a Commercial Lease? Before signing a commercial lease, the tenant should verify the registered use of the premises, whether the intended business can operate there, and who will bear responsibility for any change of use or licensing process. 🔹Key Checks Before Signing a Commercial Lease Item What to Check Building Register Current registered use of the premises Intended Business The specific business to be operated Change of Use Whether the required change can legally be made Building Standards Parking, fire safety, structural, and other requirements Business Licenses Whether permits, registrations, or reports required for the business are available Lease Agreement Who is responsible for permits, change of use, and related costs Special Clauses What happens if the tenant cannot obtain the required approval or operate the intended business Where a tenant is leasing premises for a specific business, it is generally preferable to state that purpose expressly rather than describing the premises only as a “commercial unit” or “store.” The purpose stated in the agreement may become an important factor if a dispute later arises over whether the premises were suitable for the intended use. 3. Is the Landlord Liable If the Change of Use Is Not Possible? If the premises cannot be used for the purpose agreed under the lease, the landlord’s contractual obligation to enable the tenant to use and benefit from the premises may become an issue. Article 623 of the Korean Civil Act requires a landlord to deliver the leased property and maintain it in a condition necessary for the tenant’s use and enjoyment during the lease term. [Article 623 of the Civil Act – Obligations of the Lessor] In Supreme Court Decision 2021Da202309, dated April 29, 2021, the lease expressly stated that the premises would be used as a convenience store, but issues relating to the building’s registered use interfered with normal business operations. The Supreme Court held that the condition in which leased premises must be provided should be determined in light of the agreed purpose and terms of the lease, and that the landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises in a usable condition does not automatically disappear merely because the landlord was unaware of the relevant defect. [Supreme Court Decision 2021Da202309, April 29, 2021] However, the landlord is not automatically liable whenever a change of use is denied. Relevant factors may include: the business purpose stated in the lease; whether the landlord knew the tenant’s intended business; whether the landlord represented that the business could operate at the premises; whether the problem arises from the building itself; and whether responsibility for permits or change-of-use procedures was allocated to a particular party. The central issue is whether the premises were leased for a specifically agreed business purpose and why that purpose became impossible to achieve. 4. Can the Lease Be Terminated If the Change of Use Is Not Permitted? If the inability to change the building use prevents the tenant from carrying out the business contemplated by the lease, termination of the lease may be considered. Where the tenant has already taken possession and used the premises, however, Korean law may treat the issue as termination with prospective effect rather than cancellation that retroactively unwinds the entire contractual relationship. In Supreme Court Decision 93Da61321, dated November 22, 1994, the tenant had taken possession of the premises but could not achieve the purpose of the lease because a legal restriction prevented the necessary change of use. The Supreme Court considered the continuing nature of the lease relationship and addressed the matter as one of termination rather than retroactive cancellation. [Supreme Court Decision 93Da61321, November 22, 1994] If the lease is validly terminated, the tenant may also seek the return of the lease security deposit upon returning the premises. Disputes may nevertheless arise over unpaid rent, restoration costs, or other amounts the landlord claims should be deducted from the deposit. 5. Can the Tenant Claim Interior and Business Preparation Costs as Damages? Where the landlord has breached a contractual obligation and the required elements for liability are satisfied, the tenant may consider claiming damages for losses such as interior construction costs. Article 390 of the Civil Act provides for damages where a party fails to perform its contractual obligations in accordance with the terms of the contract. [Article 390 of the Civil Act – Damages for Non-performance] Potential losses in a commercial lease dispute may include: interior construction costs; fixtures and equipment; demolition and restoration expenses; and expenses actually incurred in preparing permits or business registrations. However, not every expense incurred by the tenant will automatically be recoverable. The tenant must generally establish the connection between the landlord’s breach and the claimed loss, as well as the amount actually incurred. Construction agreements, tax invoices, bank transfer records, receipts, and similar documentation may therefore become important evidence. Claims for anticipated profits or lost business revenue generally require additional proof and should be considered separately from actual out-of-pocket expenses. 6. What Clauses Should Be Included in a Commercial Lease? Where the premises are being leased for a specific business, the lease should clearly address what happens if the required change of use or business license cannot be obtained. Relevant provisions may address: the specific business to be operated; whether a change of use is required; which party will handle the change-of-use procedure; allocation of related costs; the landlord’s obligation to provide documents or cooperation; termination rights if approvals are not obtained within a specified period; return of the deposit or other payments; and treatment of interior construction and restoration obligations. In particular, a general provision stating that “all permits and licenses are the tenant’s responsibility” may not adequately distinguish between regulatory issues relating to the tenant’s individual business and legal restrictions arising from the building itself. Where the ability to operate the intended business remains uncertain, the parties may consider expressly addressing termination and payment-return arrangements if the necessary approvals cannot be obtained. 7. Frequently Asked Questions Q1. If the lease says the premises will be used as a restaurant, must restaurant operations necessarily be permitted? The stated business purpose is an important factor, but it does not by itself determine liability. It is also necessary to consider whether the landlord knew the intended use, why the business cannot legally operate, and how the lease allocated responsibility for regulatory approvals. Q2. Is the landlord free from liability if the landlord did not know that the change of use was impossible? Not necessarily. A landlord’s lack of knowledge does not automatically eliminate the obligation to maintain the leased premises in a condition suitable for the agreed use. Whether damages may also be claimed requires a separate review of the requirements for contractual liability. Q3. What happens if neither the landlord nor the tenant is responsible for the inability to operate the business? If the contractual purpose becomes impossible to achieve for reasons attributable to neither party, Korean rules on risk allocation in bilateral contracts may become relevant. The result will depend on why the business became impossible and on the specific terms of the lease. Q4. What should a tenant do if interior construction has already been completed but the business license cannot be obtained? Before incurring additional expenses, the tenant should determine the exact reason the license cannot be issued and whether the problem can be corrected. The tenant should also preserve the building register, lease agreement, licensing documents, interior construction agreements, invoices, receipts, and communications with the landlord before assessing termination, deposit recovery, or damages. 8. Commercial Lease and Change of Use: Key Takeaways In a Korean commercial lease dispute involving a change of use, the registered use of the building is only one part of the analysis. The business purpose agreed between the landlord and tenant is also critical. If the parties entered into the lease for a specific business but a problem inherent in the building prevents that business from operating, issues such as lease termination, return of the security deposit, and damages may arise. However, the landlord is not automatically liable simply because a change of use cannot be completed. The lease agreement, special provisions, building register, reason for the licensing failure, representations made before signing, and records of actual expenditure should be reviewed together.
-
Settlement in 12 Major Traffic Violation Cases: Criminal Settlement and Insurance Compensation Explained
1. Which Accidents Qualify as One of the 12 Major Traffic Violations? The "12 major traffic violations" do not simply refer to accidents where the driver is judged to be seriously at fault. Under the proviso to Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, they refer specifically to accidents in which a person is injured as a result of violating one of twelve enumerated traffic rules. In an ordinary traffic accident, the driver may be exempt from criminal prosecution under the special provisions if the victim does not wish to press charges, or if the driver is covered by a qualifying comprehensive insurance policy. However, in accidents involving one of the 12 major violations, investigation and prosecution can proceed even if the victim does not wish to press charges, and holding comprehensive insurance alone does not necessarily end the criminal process. Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents provides that a person who causes injury through occupational negligence or gross negligence in a traffic accident may be punished by imprisonment for up to five years or a fine of up to KRW 20 million. The 12 Specific Categories of Major Violations Violation of traffic signals or instructions — whether the vehicle signal, a police officer's signal, or a no-passing/stop sign was violated Crossing the centerline — centerline crossing, or prohibited crossing, U-turns, or reversing Exceeding the speed limit by more than 20 km/h — the posted speed limit at the accident site versus the actual driving speed Improper overtaking or cutting in — whether the method, location, or timing of overtaking, or the prohibition on cutting in, was violated Improper railroad crossing procedure — whether the legally required stop-and-check procedure was followed Failure to protect pedestrians at a crosswalk — whether the pedestrian was crossing within the marked crosswalk Driving without a valid license — whether the license was suspended or revoked, or the driver lacked the license class required for the vehicle Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs — blood alcohol level, whether normal driving was impaired, and the effect of any drugs Driving on the sidewalk — whether the vehicle entered or improperly crossed the sidewalk Failure to secure passengers before departure — whether doors were closed and other safety measures were taken before the vehicle moved Failure to exercise due care in a school zone — whether a child was injured within a designated school zone Failure to secure cargo — whether necessary measures were taken to prevent cargo from falling Formally falling within one of these categories does not automatically determine the outcome of a case. There must be a causal link between the specific violation and the victim's injury, which requires a detailed review of the actual signal status, the vehicles' positions, the point of impact, the speed limit, and the pedestrian's path of movement, among other factors. 2. How Do Criminal Settlement and Insurance Settlement Differ? The civil settlement handled by an insurance company and the criminal settlement a driver seeks directly from the victim are two separate processes. Payment of insurance proceeds does not, by itself, complete a criminal settlement, and conversely, reaching a criminal settlement does not necessarily resolve every civil damages issue the insurance company is responsible for. A civil settlement is intended to compensate the victim for the property and emotional damage caused by the accident. A criminal settlement, by contrast, carries the important additional meaning that the victim expresses a wish not to see the driver criminally punished, alongside compensation for the harm suffered. However, paying a criminal settlement amount does not always mean that amount is treated as entirely separate from civil damages. How the legal relationship develops afterward can depend on how the settlement agreement characterizes the payment and its relationship to civil damages and insurance claims. For this reason, the following points should be clearly confirmed when drafting a criminal settlement agreement. The legal character of the amount being paid Its relationship to the damages the victim will receive from the insurance company Whether additional civil claims will be permitted The scope of the victim's expressed wish not to see the driver punished Whether an additional claim will be possible if aftereffects develop later 3. What Determines the Amount of a Settlement in a 12-Major-Violation Case? There is no fixed schedule of amounts set by law for settlements in 12-major-violation cases. Rather than a uniform calculation, the amount must be negotiated by weighing the severity of the injury, the gravity of the accident, the risk of criminal punishment, and the actual extent of recovery achieved. The Severity of the Victim's Injury Whether the case involves a serious injury is treated as an important aggravating factor in traffic-accident-injury cases. The Degree of Illegality and Fault in the Accident Cases involving two or more overlapping major-violation grounds, or reckless driving, may be assessed as cases of "heightened illegality." Aftereffects and Loss of Income If the victim has been unable to work for an extended period, or has suffered a reduction in working capacity, the resulting damages can extend well beyond medical costs. The Victim's Own Fault If the victim's own conduct — such as running a red light, speeding, failing to wear safety equipment, or an unpredictable jaywalking crossing — contributed to the accident or increased the damage, this can be reflected in the calculation of civil damages. Whether Comprehensive and Driver's Insurance Are in Place If the driver holds comprehensive auto insurance, a substantial portion of the civil damages can be covered through that insurance. However, because holding comprehensive insurance alone is unlikely to secure the special exemption from criminal punishment in a 12-major-violation case, the need for a separate criminal settlement can still arise. The Risk of Criminal Punishment The importance of reaching a settlement increases where circumstances such as the following are present. The victim suffered a serious injury There are multiple victims Drunk driving or driving without a license is also at issue A child was injured in a school zone Two or more major violations overlap The driver has a prior record of similar traffic offenses The victim is requesting severe punishment 4. Does Reaching a Settlement with the Victim Guarantee Avoiding Criminal Punishment? Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents bars prosecution against the victim's express wishes in an ordinary traffic accident, but this special provision does not apply to accidents involving one of the 12 major violations. Accordingly, even if the victim submits a statement declining to press charges, the police investigation and the prosecutor's charging decision can still proceed. That said, a settlement can still have a significant effect on the severity of the criminal punishment imposed. The traffic-crime sentencing guidelines that took effect on July 1, 2026 list the following as mitigating factors in cases involving traffic-related injury or death. The victim's expressed wish against punishment Substantial recovery of the harm caused Meaningful recovery of the damage Holding comprehensive auto insurance Genuine remorse No prior record of criminal punishment Conversely, factors such as serious injury, a major violation involving heightened illegality, a prior record of similar offenses, or pressuring the victim during settlement negotiations can work against the driver. It is important to acknowledge the circumstances of the accident, offer a sincere apology, check on the victim's treatment and recovery, and objectively identify what harm remains uncompensated by insurance. 5. How Should You Prepare for a Settlement After a 12-Major-Violation Accident? If a 12-major-violation accident has occurred, the first step is not to propose a settlement amount, but to first organize the type of accident and the scope of the harm. Confirming Whether the 12-Major-Violation Provision Applies It is necessary to confirm whether the specific violation identified by the police is consistent with the actual accident record. [Evidence to Secure] The original dashcam footage from your vehicle Dashcam footage from nearby vehicles CCTV footage from intersections or nearby businesses Photographs of the accident scene The traffic signal cycle chart Vehicle speed data Navigation driving records The police-prepared traffic accident investigation report Witness contact information and statements In particular, whether a signal violation, a crosswalk accident, or centerline crossing occurred can turn on the exact point of impact and the vehicles' paths immediately before the collision. Confirming the Severity of the Victim's Injury The number of weeks of diagnosed recovery time alone does not determine the settlement amount. The following materials should be reviewed together. Medical certificates and injury diagnosis reports Surgical records Admission and discharge confirmations Future treatment plans The likelihood of lasting aftereffects Records of lost work or reduced income The treatment costs and settlement amounts already paid by the insurer If there are multiple victims, each victim's degree of injury and insurance treatment should be assessed separately. Also, if the victim declines to be contacted but is nonetheless repeatedly called, or family members or the workplace are contacted, this can be treated as secondary harm. The sentencing guidelines also treat persistently pressuring a victim, or hinting at disadvantages to them, during settlement negotiations as an unfavorable sentencing factor — so if the victim does not wish to be contacted directly, conveying your position through legal counsel is worth considering. 6. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Q1. Is there a fixed settlement amount per week of diagnosed recovery time in 12-major-violation cases? There is no legal standard requiring a fixed amount per week of diagnosed recovery. The number of weeks is only one of several factors used to assess injury severity — surgery, length of hospitalization, aftereffects, the victim's occupation and income, the fault ratio, the insurance compensation already paid, and the risk of criminal punishment are all considered together. Q2. Do I still need a criminal settlement even if I have comprehensive auto insurance? In 12-major-violation cases, holding comprehensive insurance alone may not conclude the criminal process, so the need for a separate criminal settlement can still arise. That said, a criminal settlement is not always required in every case. It is necessary to comprehensively review whether the injury is minor, whether the harm has already been sufficiently recovered through insurance, whether the victim wants the driver punished, and whether the driver has a record of similar offenses. Q3. What should I do if the victim demands an excessive settlement amount? Rather than immediately accepting the demanded amount or reacting emotionally by refusing it, the basis for the figure should be reviewed. It is worth first examining the treatment costs and damages already paid by insurance, the severity of the injury, the likelihood of lasting aftereffects, the actual loss of income, and the likely criminal disposition in comparable cases. 7. Points to Keep in Mind There is no fixed market rate or standard formula tied to weeks of diagnosed recovery for settlements in 12-major-violation cases. The severity of the victim's injury, the likelihood of lasting aftereffects, the fault ratio, the insurance treatment history, the type of major violation involved, and the driver's prior record are the key factors that determine both the scope of settlement and the criminal outcome — and because the specific wording of the settlement agreement can determine whether the criminal settlement amount is treated as civil damages, or whether future claims are limited, the scope of the settlement should be confirmed before any payment is made or any signature given. Because a 12-major-violation accident requires reviewing the accident record, medical materials, and insurance treatment history together to determine the right course of action, anyone facing a police investigation or a settlement negotiation with a victim should first consult an attorney experienced in this area to review which major-violation category applies and the legal effect of the settlement agreement.
-
Generative AI and Personal Data: What Businesses Should Check Before Uploading Customer Information or Contracts
Businesses are increasingly using generative AI to review contracts, summarize meetings, respond to customer inquiries, and draft documents. However, when contracts or other materials entered into an AI service contain personal data relating to customers or employees, the issue extends beyond operational efficiency. It may raise concerns regarding personal data processing, confidentiality, and the management of internal business information. Businesses should therefore understand how an AI service stores and uses input data and establish internal rules that reflect how generative AI is actually used within the organization. How Is Information Entered into Generative AI Processed? From the user’s perspective, generative AI appears to involve simply entering a question and receiving a response. In practice, however, prompts and uploaded files are transmitted to the service provider’s systems. Depending on the service policy and account type, they may be retained as conversation records or system logs and may also be used to improve the service. Before entering business materials, companies should check: ▪️ Whether input data may be used to train the AI model ▪️ How long conversations and uploaded files are retained ▪️ Whether conversations and uploaded materials can be deleted ▪️ In which country and on which servers the data is processed ▪️ What access permissions are granted when the AI is connected to external applications or internal systems Using a paid or enterprise account does not automatically resolve every data protection issue. The relevant contractual terms and actual data-processing arrangements must also be reviewed. Is Information No Longer Personal Data Once the Name Is Removed? Removing a customer’s name or contact information from a contract does not necessarily mean that the remaining information is no longer personal data. Personal data includes not only information that directly identifies an individual, such as a name, but also information that may identify a person when combined with other readily available information. Even after a name has been removed, an individual may still be identifiable through a combination of information such as: ▪️ The company name and a specific job title ▪️ The contract date and transaction amount ▪️ The employee’s department and performance evaluation ▪️ Detailed consultation history and family relationships ▪️ A case number and the location of a dispute A company name alone is generally information about a legal entity. However, when combined with a specific position, transaction details, or other contextual information, it may make an individual employee or representative identifiable. Businesses should therefore remove information that is unnecessary for the intended task rather than deleting names alone. Actual names, contact details, company names, and similar identifiers may also need to be replaced with fictional or generic information. Does Entering Customer Information Automatically Violate Korea’s Personal Information Protection Act? Entering customer information into a generative AI service does not automatically constitute a violation of Korea’s Personal Information Protection Act, commonly referred to as the PIPA. However, a business may generally use personal data only within the scope of the original purpose of collection and an appropriate legal basis. It is therefore necessary to assess whether the intended AI use is related to the original processing purpose and whether additional consent or another legal basis is required. The relationship between the business and the AI service provider must also be reviewed. The applicable legal framework may differ depending on whether the provider processes data solely on the company’s instructions or also uses the input data for its own purposes, such as model training or service improvement. Depending on the actual arrangement, the use of the service may involve outsourced processing, third-party provision, or other forms of data processing. If personal data is transferred to servers or service providers located outside Korea, the requirements governing overseas transfers must also be considered. The applicable rules cannot be determined solely from the fact that customer information was entered into an AI service. Businesses should review the actual contractual structure and data flow, including: ▪️ The legal basis for using personal data in the relevant AI task ▪️ The purposes for which the service provider uses input data ▪️ Whether the data is used for training or service improvement ▪️ The data-retention period and deletion procedures ▪️ The server locations and countries to which data is transferred ▪️ The involvement of subprocessors or downstream service providers ▪️ How input data is handled after the service contract ends Contracts and Consultation Records Raise More Than Personal Data Issues Contracts and customer consultation records may contain confidential business information in addition to personal data. Examples include: ▪️ Transaction terms and supply prices ▪️ Sales strategies and business plans ▪️ Technical materials and development information ▪️ Confidentiality obligations agreed with customers or business partners ▪️ Strategies for litigation, investigations, or other disputes ▪️ Non-public financial information and internal decision-making materials Entering such information into an external generative AI service may raise issues under the PIPA, but it may also create risks involving contractual confidentiality obligations, trade secret protection, customer security agreements, and internal company policies. A corporate generative AI policy should therefore cover not only personal data but also trade secrets, contractual information, technical materials, and dispute-related documents. Internal Rules Businesses Should Establish for Generative AI Use When employees are left to decide individually how generative AI should be used, the company may be unable to identify what information has been entered into which external service. Rather than issuing a general instruction not to enter personal data, businesses should establish practical and specific rules that employees can follow in their day-to-day work. 1. Approved Services and Accounts The company should designate the generative AI services and account types that employees are permitted to use. Employees should also be prohibited from entering business materials through personal accounts or unapproved services. 2. Prohibited Input Data The company should clearly define the information that must not be entered into generative AI services. This may include resident registration numbers, bank account information, health information, other sensitive or high-risk personal data, trade secrets, non-public contractual terms, and materials relating to litigation or criminal investigations. 3. Approval Procedures for High-Risk Documents High-risk materials, such as contracts, human resources documents, and customer consultation records, may be made subject to prior review or approval by the responsible department. 4. Standards for Removing or Replacing Identifying Information Businesses should establish standards for removing or replacing information that could identify an individual or a transaction party, including names, contact details, company names, and transaction amounts. Rather than uploading an entire contract, employees should extract only the clauses required for the relevant task. Actual customer information may also be replaced with fictional names or sample data. 5. Conversation History and Model-Training Settings The company should determine whether the service allows input data to be excluded from model training, whether conversation history can be disabled, and how deletion features operate. 6. Internal Reporting and Incident Response Employees should be required to report promptly if personal data or confidential business information is entered into an AI service by mistake. The company should also establish procedures for deleting records, disabling external integrations, requesting deletion from the service provider, and taking any other necessary measures. What Should a Business Do If Customer Information Has Already Been Entered? If an employee mistakenly enters customer information or an internal document into a generative AI service, the company should first stop any further sharing or use of the resulting output. The following matters should then be reviewed: ▪️ Which account and AI service were used ▪️ What personal data or confidential information was entered ▪️ Whether the conversation and uploaded files can be deleted ▪️ Whether the service was connected to any external applications ▪️ Whether the information may have been used for training or service improvement ▪️ Whether a third party may have gained access to the information Where necessary, the company should delete the conversation history and uploaded files, revoke external access permissions, and request that the service provider stop processing or delete the relevant information. Whether the incident requires a personal data breach report or notification to affected individuals should be determined by considering the type and volume of information involved, the possibility of third-party access, whether the data has been deleted, and the potential harm to the individuals concerned. Effective Generative AI Use Requires Governance, Not Just Prohibition Generative AI can improve efficiency in contract review, document drafting, and customer communications. However, when its use is left entirely to individual employees, a business may have little control over where customer information and internal documents are transmitted or how they are subsequently used. Businesses should establish specific rules regarding approved services, prohibited data, the removal or replacement of identifying information, approval procedures for high-risk documents, and incident response. Decent Law Firm advises businesses on the legal use of generative AI, including compliance with Korean personal data protection requirements, review of service terms and data-processing agreements, overseas data transfers, trade secret protection, and the preparation of internal AI-use policies. This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice regarding any specific matter or business.
