We Resolve Legal Matters
How can we assist you?
Blogs
More-
Startup Incorporation in Korea - It Doesn’t End with Registration
Incorporating a startup is not just a matter of filing paperwork. It is a strategic process of designing your equity structure, voting rights, and shareholder relationships. The way you structure your company at the beginning will directly impact future investment opportunities, control over management, and the risk of disputes. Why Start as a Corporation from Day One In Korea, more startups are choosing to incorporate from the outset rather than starting as sole proprietorships. This is because, under a sole proprietorship, the founder bears unlimited personal liability, and risks grow rapidly as the business scales. In addition, most investment programs, government grants, and certifications are designed specifically for incorporated entities. The Most Common Risk: 50:50 Equity Split One of the most frequent mistakes among co-founders is a 50:50 equity split. While it may seem fair at first, it often leads to deadlocks in critical decisions such as appointing a CEO, approving investments, or entering into major contracts. Another issue arises when founders’ contributions change over time, but ownership remains fixed—often leading to conflict and, in many cases, legal disputes. To mitigate these risks, equity should be structured based on roles and contributions, and paired with vesting mechanisms tied to actual participation. Articles of Incorporation Are Not Enough- Why a Shareholders’ Agreement Is Essential If the articles of incorporation serve as the company’s constitution, a shareholders’ agreement functions as a detailed private arrangement among founders. Key matters that should be addressed separately include: Share buyback mechanisms (e.g., call options) Voting rights and decision-making structures Risk management when a founder exits Non-compete obligations and IP protection Without these provisions, resolving disputes later can become significantly more difficult. Structuring for Investment and Government Programs From the incorporation stage, startups should prepare for future investment and growth. Investment readiness → Establishing board structure and preferred share frameworks Government support and certifications → Designing capital and governance structures aligned with venture certification or special programs Early-stage structuring can have a decisive impact on both investment terms and founder control. How Decent Approaches Startup Incorporation Decent Law Firm does not simply handle registration. We act as a strategic partner in designing your startup’s legal and governance framework. Equity structuring for co-founders Integrated design of articles of incorporation and shareholders’ agreements Stock option and investment structure planning Structuring with future investment, exit, and global expansion in mind Incorporation Is Just the Beginning The way you design equity and shareholder relationships will define your company’s future and control structure. If you are currently deciding how to allocate equity among co-founders, or need to review your structure before incorporation, We invite you to consult with Decent’s Corporate Practice Team.
-
Inheriting Crypto from Binance and Other Overseas Exchanges: What Heirs Need to Know
If a family member passed away while using overseas exchanges such as Binance, Bybit, or KuCoin, the cryptocurrency remaining in their accounts is part of their estate. Unlike a domestic bank account, however, the process is far from straightforward. Most heirs have no idea where to begin. Crypto Held on Overseas Exchanges Is Part of the Estate The fact that an exchange is based overseas does not exclude its assets from inheritance. Any asset with economic value is subject to estate laws, regardless of where it is held. The following types of crypto assets are typically included in the estate: Coins held in spot and futures accounts on overseas exchanges such as Binance, Bybit, and KuCoin Assets held in sub-accounts, Earn/staking products, Launchpad/Launchpool, and similar products Stablecoins such as USDT and USDC, as well as altcoins and tokens of all kinds Coins stored in personal wallets such as MetaMask or hardware wallets The challenge is that, unlike domestic bank accounts, there is no centralized system for looking up balances across exchanges. Heirs must track down every exchange and wallet the deceased used on their own. This typically requires piecing together evidence from emails, text messages, OTP apps, exchange notification emails, and bank transaction records. Why Inheriting from Overseas Exchanges Is So Complicated Overseas exchange accounts are built around a single-user model. From account registration and KYC verification to two-factor authentication, everything is tied to the account holder personally. Even as a legitimate heir, you cannot simply log in or withdraw funds. ⚠️ Important: Attempting to access the account without authorization carries serious legal risk. Guessing login credentials or bypassing 2FA to move assets could expose you to criminal or civil liability. If there are multiple heirs, it could escalate into a dispute over embezzlement, breach of fiduciary duty, or unjust enrichment. Each exchange also has its own inheritance process and documentation requirements. Some, like Binance, have a formal inheritance procedure in place. Others have no published guidelines at all and handle requests case by case via email. If the account was registered under a non-Korean nationality — such as a European or Japanese address — the exchange may require documents that conform to that country's legal standards. When multiple heirs are involved, some exchanges require signatures and consent from all parties, which can stall the process for months if family cooperation breaks down. Three Problems That Are Hard to Solve Alone These are the most common difficulties heirs encounter in practice. ① The documentation cycle Even after contacting customer support, heirs often receive nothing more than a generic reply asking for proof of death and proof of heirship. Submit one set of documents, and the exchange asks for another. Misunderstandings in English-language correspondence can send the process back to square one. ② The estate tax deadline If the tax filing deadline arrives before the crypto has actually been recovered, heirs face a separate problem: which date's price should be used for valuation, and how should the filing be handled? Missing the deadline or filing incorrectly can result in significant penalties and surcharges. ③ Disputes among co-heirs One heir may want to recover and divide the assets quickly, while another delays or refuses to cooperate on documentation. If one heir accesses the account and moves assets unilaterally before an agreement is reached, it can give rise to claims of embezzlement or unjust enrichment against them. Decent Law Firm's Five-Step Process Decent Law Firm's dedicated digital asset team handles inheritance cases involving not only domestic exchanges such as Upbit and Bithumb, but also overseas exchanges including Binance. ① Identifying the deceased's crypto holdings We begin by reviewing emails, mobile records, 2FA apps, and transaction histories to build a complete picture of every exchange account and wallet involved. ② Structuring the estate and tax strategy We assess the composition of heirs, the existence of a will, the proportion of crypto relative to other assets, and the optimal approach to estate tax filing — helping the family reach a clear agreement on how assets will be divided. ③ Analyzing each exchange's requirements and preparing documentation We review the inheritance procedures and requirements for each overseas exchange, then design the appropriate authentication process — including translation, notarization, and Apostille certification where required. ④ Filing inheritance claims and supporting asset recovery We handle all English-language correspondence with the exchanges, manage document submission, and respond to follow-up requests — working to ensure the inherited crypto is transferred safely into the heirs' accounts. ⑤ Estate tax filing and ongoing risk management We oversee valuation timing, exchange rate application, and tax return preparation, while accounting for the risk of future tax audits or disputes. Not sure where to start? Let's talk first The decisions made early in an overseas crypto inheritance case can significantly affect the odds of recovery, the time it takes, the tax burden, and the likelihood of family conflict. Decent Law Firm's digital asset team is with you from the initial consultation through to final recovery and tax resolution.
-
Traffic Accident Settlement Representation & Agreement Drafting Guide – Must-Read
The Legal Significance of “Settlement” for the Offender In traffic accidents that proceed as criminal cases, settlement with the victim is not merely a financial resolution. If a settlement is reached: In offenses prosecutable only upon complaint, prosecution may not proceed (except where statutory exceptions apply). Even where exceptions apply, settlement is considered a favorable sentencing factor. The likelihood of a fine or suspended sentence increases. The risk of imprisonment decreases. Conversely, failure to reach a settlement may be interpreted as a lack of effort to restore harm, which can significantly affect sentencing. In short, settlement is a critical factor in sentencing and a key variable shaping early defense strategy. Practical Problems When Attempting Settlement Alone Many offenders assume that having comprehensive auto insurance is sufficient, or that a direct apology and negotiation will resolve the matter. However, comprehensive insurance alone does not exempt criminal liability in cases falling under statutory exceptions or involving fatalities (Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents). Settlement still plays a crucial role in sentencing. In practice, the following issues frequently arise: Negotiations collapsing due to emotional confrontation Failure to respond properly to excessive settlement demands Settlement agreements lacking language sufficient for sentencing mitigation Phone calls or messages later used as unfavorable evidence In particular, inappropriate expressions during direct negotiation may create misunderstandings or escalate into secondary disputes. Settlement is not merely a conversation—it is a process of structuring legal consequences. Why Professional Settlement Representation Is Necessary Traffic accident settlement representation is not simply about delivering compensation on behalf of the offender. It involves: Analyzing the accident circumstances and fault ratio Reviewing criminal liability exposure and sentencing outlook Determining a reasonable settlement range Drafting an agreement clearly reflecting the victim’s intent not to seek punishment Establishing submission and response strategy before investigative authorities From the offender’s perspective, the approach must shift from emotional reaction to risk management. Immediately after the accident, statements should be made cautiously, and direct financial negotiation with the victim should generally be avoided. After accurately analyzing the nature of the case, a settlement strategy aligned with the criminal procedure should be designed. Settlement is not the final stage of the case—it sits at the core of the overall criminal defense strategy.
-
Is Crypto Referral Legal? Why Financial Authority Press Releases Are Not Enough
Following a recent press release by the Financial Services Commission (FSC), inquiries regarding the legality of crypto referral programs have increased significantly. Many businesses that use exchange referral codes for marketing, investment advisory services, or community operations are now concerned about potential violations of the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information (the “AML Act”). However, the legality of crypto referral programs cannot be determined solely based on an FSC press release. In practice, legal assessments must take into account the statutory provisions of the AML Act, relevant court decisions, and investigative standards applied by law enforcement authorities. The Meaning and Limitations of the FSC Press Release In its press release, the FSC suggested that certain referral structures could constitute brokerage or intermediary activities involving virtual asset exchanges. It is important to note, however, that this position reflects an administrative interpretation, not a binding judicial ruling or settled legal doctrine. When legal liability is at issue, courts ultimately determine—on a case-by-case basis—whether a specific referral structure satisfies the statutory elements of a regulated virtual asset service provider under the AML Act. Accordingly, it is legally inappropriate to conclude that all referral programs are unlawful based solely on regulatory commentary. The Core Legal Issue Under the AML Act Article 7 of the AML Act imposes reporting obligations on virtual asset service providers. The key question is whether a referral program goes beyond simple advertising or promotion and instead constitutes the business of brokering or intermediating the purchase, sale, or exchange of virtual assets. In making this determination, authorities focus not on the mere use of referral codes, but on substantive factors such as whether the operator intervenes in transaction structures, influences investment decisions, controls the flow of funds, or effectively forces users to use a specific exchange. Absent these elements, referral activities are generally viewed as marketing rather than brokerage. Guidance from Court Decisions and Investigative Practice Court rulings and multiple non-indictment decisions indicate a consistent approach: referral programs are often characterized as marketing arrangements provided by exchanges, carried out based on users’ voluntary choices. Where the operator does not execute trades, handle customer funds, or mandate the use of a specific exchange, it is difficult to classify such activities as regulated virtual asset services. In practice, investigative authorities tend to focus less on the existence of a referral program itself and more on whether it is combined with fraudulent conduct, unregistered business operations, or substantive involvement in investment decisions. Key Considerations for Crypto Referral Businesses That said, not all referral structures are risk-free. Legal concerns may arise where a business repeatedly promotes only a single exchange, excludes alternative options, or combines referral activities with investment guidance that materially affects users’ decisions. In such cases, the activity may be viewed as de facto brokerage or intermediation. Ultimately, the legality of a crypto referral program depends not on its label, but on whether the overall business structure can be legally justified under the AML Act. Businesses that currently operate referral programs—or are considering implementing them—should carefully assess their structure before regulatory or investigative issues arise. Decent Law Firm’s Digital Asset Team provides legal opinions on the compliance of crypto referral structures, evaluates AML Act risks, and assists clients in preparing for potential regulatory or investigative scrutiny. Crypto referrals are not simply a question of “legal or illegal,” but whether the structure can be clearly explained and defended under the law. If you require a legal review of your crypto referral business model, consulting experienced legal professionals at an early stage can be a critical step in risk management.
-
China’s Export Controls on Japan, Three Critical Risks Korean Companies Must Address
At the beginning of 2026, a major shift in the global supply chain landscape has emerged. On January 6, 2026, the Chinese government announced sweeping export control measures targeting Japan, citing national security and national interest concerns. This development is not merely a bilateral issue between China and Japan. For Korean companies operating subsidiaries in China or sourcing key Chinese materials for transactions involving Japan, the impact is direct and potentially severe. Proactive legal and compliance preparation is now essential. China’s 2026 Export Control Announcement No. 1 Targeted Export Restrictions Against Japan On January 6, 2026, China’s Ministry of Commerce and the General Administration of Customs jointly issued “Announcement No. 1 of 2026,” imposing comprehensive export controls on Japan. This marks the first instance in which China has explicitly targeted a specific country through export control measures, signaling a structural shift in China’s trade and security policy. Key Measures Comprehensive ban on military-related exports All exports of dual-use items to Japanese military end users (MEU) or for military purposes are prohibited. Broad scope of controlled items Including rare earth elements, gallium, germanium, graphite, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, high-performance sensors, and drones. Catch-all controls Even non-listed items may be restricted if they are deemed capable of military end use. Prohibition of indirect or circumvention exports Supplies routed through third countries, including Korea, to Japan are subject to enforcement. Three Key Risks for Korean Companies China’s export controls extend beyond China–Japan trade and directly affect Korean businesses embedded in China-centered supply chains. 1. Export Restrictions on China-Based Korean Subsidiaries Korean companies manufacturing in China may face significant barriers or outright denial of export licenses when shipping products or components to Japan. If the Japanese counterparty is linked—directly or indirectly—to the defense sector, companies may encounter contractual non-performance risks and potential legal disputes. 2. Heightened End-User and End-Use Certification (EUC) Requirements Even where Japanese customers are civilian entities, Chinese authorities are likely to require strict and detailed proof that the goods will not be diverted to military use. This may result in: Prolonged licensing reviews Requests for supplementary documentation License denials All of which can disrupt delivery schedules and commercial relationships. 3. Sanctions and Blacklist Risks from Indirect Exports This is the most critical risk area. Where Korean companies import Chinese-origin materials, process them, and re-export finished products to Japan, Chinese authorities may view the transaction as an attempt to circumvent export controls. Such a determination could expose companies to: Regulatory investigations Inclusion on control or blacklist regimes Long-term restrictions on operations involving China Practical Compliance Checklist for Corporate Decision-Makers China’s export control regime should now be treated as a permanent compliance issue, not a temporary disruption. Korean companies should prioritize the following reviews: Classification of products based on HS codes, CAS numbers, and technical specifications Systematic management of end-user and end-use documentation Advance legal review of licensing requirements and regulatory exposure Review of force majeure and liability clauses in international contracts Export Controls Require Structural Legal Planning Decent Law Firm’s International Practice Team provides tailored legal solutions based on extensive experience in cross-border regulatory compliance. Our advisory services include: Export control and sanctions risk assessments Structuring of re-export and third-country transaction models Legal support for overseas investments and China-based subsidiaries International contract risk management and dispute resolution As China’s export control regime continues to reshape global supply chains, early legal assessment and well-structured transactions are critical to maintaining business continuity and regulatory certainty. Decent Law Firm stands ready to support your export control and international compliance strategy.
-
Key Issues in Stock Option Disputes
A Stock Option Lawyer’s Perspective Stock option disputes often turn on the exact wording of the agreement and how the terms were explained at the time of grant. In practice, a single clause—or the absence of one—can lead to disputes worth millions of dollars. Stock options usually begin as an “incentive for talent.” However, when variables such as failed IPOs, resignation or termination, or changes in company valuation arise, stock options quickly become one of the most contentious legal issues in corporate disputes. 1. Why Do Stock Option Disputes Keep Occurring? At their core, stock options are based on future value appreciation. The company promises significant rewards if it grows, and employees commit their efforts based on that expectation. Disputes arise when those expectations diverge. Growth may stall, valuations may decline, or unexpected resignation or dismissal may occur. At that point, one party often claims, “This was not the condition we agreed to.” Common causes of stock option disputes include: Vague or ambiguous contract language open to multiple interpretations Key terms explained verbally but not documented in writing or email No clear rules governing exercisability upon resignation or termination These gaps allow each party to interpret the agreement in their own favor, frequently leading to litigation. 2. Lessons from the Flex Case: Cash-Settled vs. Equity-Settled Stock Options A widely discussed case in the Korean startup ecosystem involving Flex, an HR technology company, highlights the importance of specificity in stock option agreements. The central issue was whether the options were: Equity-settled (physical delivery): Shares are issued upon exercise, or Cash-settled (difference settlement): Only the difference between the exercise price and fair market value is paid in cash Korean law explicitly allows cash-settled structures. Under Article 340-2 of the Korean Commercial Act and Article 16-3 of the Special Act on Venture Business Promotion, companies may compensate the exercise gain in cash or treasury shares equivalent to the price difference. Key legal issues a stock option lawyer examines in such cases: Explicit contractual language: Does the agreement clearly permit cash settlement? If not, courts may presume physical share delivery. Procedural clarity: Are the exercise method and payment mechanics clearly defined? Duty to explain: Did the company adequately explain the structure and risks (including tax implications), and is there documentary evidence such as emails or briefing materials? 3. Tax Risk: Why “Tax Bombs” Occur Tax issues can be as damaging as legal disputes. In many cases, tax authorities impose substantial additional assessments years after the exercise. Valuation disputes: Stock option gains are generally taxed as employment income. For private companies, determining “fair market value” is critical. Even if tax was initially paid based on a low valuation, later discovery of third-party transaction prices may lead to reassessment and retroactive taxation. Loss of tax benefits: Failure to meet venture company tax exemption or deferral requirements in advance may result in losing valuable tax incentives altogether. Without proactive tax planning, compensation can quickly turn into a liability. 4. Group Structures and M&A Complications Legal complexity increases significantly in holding company, subsidiary, or M&A scenarios. Cost allocation issues: When a parent company grants stock options to subsidiary employees, determining who bears the cost—and whether it is tax-deductible—requires careful structuring and internal agreements. IPO failure or M&A scenarios: Many employees rely on “exercisable upon IPO” clauses. If the IPO is canceled or the company is acquired, options may become worthless unless the contract clearly addresses acceleration, succession, or cash compensation. A well-drafted agreement must include a clear exit strategy covering changes in control, failed listings, and acquisition scenarios. 5. Stock Option Lawyers Start with Preventive Design Stock options are not merely an HR matter—they are a core corporate legal issue. Decent Law Firm’s corporate law team advises not only on dispute resolution, but also on preventive legal structuring. Our approach includes: Compliance review: Articles of incorporation, shareholder resolutions, statutory procedures, and registrations Precision drafting: Clear distinction between cash-settled and equity-settled options; detailed rules for voluntary resignation, involuntary termination, and disciplinary actions Contingency planning: Treatment of options in M&A, IPO cancellation, or control changes Tax risk management: Advance analysis of taxation timing and valuation risks Dispute resolution: Legal opinions, contract interpretation, and litigation support in damages claims A well-structured stock option plan and clear explanatory materials serve as proof of a company’s credibility to both talent and investors. With extensive experience from large corporations and in-house legal teams, Decent Law Firm understands internal decision-making structures and real-world business dynamics. For complex stock option issues, Decent Law Firm’s corporate law team provides clear, defensible standards.
