We Resolve Legal Matters
How can we assist you?
Blogs
More-
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.
-
Korea’s AI Basic Act: Key Compliance Checkpoints for AI Businesses
The public notice period for the Enforcement Decree of the “Framework Act on the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence and Establishment of Trust” (hereinafter the 'AI Basic Act') concluded on December 22, 2025. With the Act set to take effect on January 22, 2026, the South Korean government has finalized the institutional framework. For AI service providers, these regulations are not merely post-launch checklists but essential specifications that must be integrated from the initial planning and design stages. 1. Labeling Obligations for Generative AI and UX Integration Transparency requirements under Article 31 of the AI Basic Act have been further refined through the Enforcement Decree. Labeling Methods: Providers must choose between a "Human-Perceptible Format" (visible text/watermarks) and a "Machine-Readable Format" (C2PA, metadata, etc.) to identify AI-generated content. Mandatory Notification: Even when adopting machine-readable formats, providers are obligated to notify users at least once via text or audio prompts. Avoidance of Double Regulation: If content (e.g., deepfakes) has already been labeled in accordance with other relevant laws, it may be exempt from redundant labeling duties under this Act. Practical Impact: This is not a simple notification task; it directly impacts UX/UI design. Legal reviews should be conducted during the design phase to avoid the prohibitive costs of post-launch modifications. 2. High-Impact AI Confirmation and Launch Risk Management The Act defines "High-Impact AI" as systems that significantly affect human life, physical safety, or fundamental rights (e.g., healthcare, transportation, recruitment, credit scoring, etc.). Confirmation Procedure: Businesses can apply to the Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) to confirm whether their service qualifies as "High-Impact AI." The government must respond within 60 days (30 days + a possible 30-day extension). Business Risk: The government's response timeline is a critical variable for service launch schedules. If a service is retroactively classified as High-Impact AI, the provider may face the risk of redesigning the entire system architecture to meet enhanced safety standards. 3. Integration with the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) The Enforcement Decree reflects efforts to resolve overlapping regulations with the existing PIPA. Deemed Compliance: If a business faithfully fulfills its obligations under PIPA, it is deemed to have satisfied the safety and reliability requirements of the AI Basic Act regarding the processing of personal information. Limitations: Note that this "deemed compliance" applies only to personal data processing. Obligations regarding algorithm transparency and accountability for AI outputs must still be addressed separately under the AI Basic Act. 4. Post-Management Accountability: 5-Year Data Retention & Domestic Agents The Decree formalizes accountability measures to verify regulatory compliance. Record-Keeping: Documents including risk management plans, explanation protocols, and user protection measures must be retained for 5 years. These serve as crucial evidence during disputes or regulatory investigations. Domestic Agent Appointment: Overseas AI providers are now explicitly required to appoint a domestic agent in Korea. Domestic companies utilizing APIs from global Big Tech firms must also conduct supply-chain compliance checks. 5. Safety Obligations for Large-Scale AI Models (High-Compute AI) The Decree imposes obligations to establish risk identification and management systems for developers of large-scale AI models with cumulative training computation exceeding $10^{26}$ FLOPs. Domestic businesses providing services based on these hyper-scale models must also review the legal structure of liability and risk-sharing. Conclusion: A 1-Year Grace Period, but the Time to Prepare is Now The government intends to provide a one-year grace period following the enforcement of the Act. However, given the nature of the AI industry, reactive adjustments can lead to immense technical costs and legal exposure. Enterprises must now view "Compliance by Design" as a core element of their service, moving beyond mere technological development. We recommend a thorough diagnostic of whether your services fall under the "High-Impact" or "Generative AI" categories to ensure full readiness by the enforcement date. DECENT Law Firm provides tailored legal counsel and solutions to navigate the evolving regulatory landscape of the AI industry. If you require a detailed review or a compliance audit, please contact us.
-
Key Issues Companies Must Understand Regarding Wage Peak Systems
Concept and Legal Nature of the Wage Peak System A wage peak system is a scheme under which an employee’s wages are gradually reduced after reaching a certain age, in exchange for maintaining or extending employment until the mandatory retirement age. Against the backdrop of an aging workforce and policies favoring longer employment, many companies adopt wage peak systems as a means to mitigate rising labor costs. However, this system is not merely an internal HR policy. Because it entails a fundamental change to core working conditions, operating a wage peak system without proper legal review can expose a company to significant dispute risks. Not all wage reductions are justified simply by labeling them as a “wage peak system.” Whether such a system is lawful depends on how it is designed and implemented in practice. Companies are therefore advised to carefully review the points below before proceeding. Key Legal Issues in Practice In practice, the problematic issues are quite clear: Whether wage reductions based on age constitute “unreasonable discrimination” prohibited under the Act on Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Employment and Promotion of Employment of Older Persons Whether the scale of wage reduction and the period of application are excessive Whether corresponding measures—such as reductions in workload, responsibilities, or changes in job duties—have actually been implemented to offset the wage reduction Many companies focus solely on adjusting wages, while treating accompanying measures such as workload reduction, job reassignment, or reduced working hours as a mere formality—or failing to implement them altogether. In such cases, the wage peak system can become the starting point of serious disputes, regardless of its stated purpose. These issues often extend beyond labor disputes and escalate into civil claims for unpaid wage differentials, making them far from trivial. Summary of Supreme Court Standards In determining the validity of a wage peak system, the Supreme Court comprehensively considers the following factors (Supreme Court Decision dated May 26, 2022, Case No. 2017Da292343): The legitimacy of the purpose for introducing the wage peak system The extent of disadvantage suffered by the affected employees Whether measures corresponding to the wage reduction were introduced, and whether such measures are appropriate Whether the financial resources saved through the wage peak system were used for its original intended purpose If any one of these elements is lacking, the wage peak system may be deemed invalid as age-based discrimination. In practice, there have been numerous cases where companies were required to retroactively pay substantial amounts of unpaid wages despite having implemented such systems. In particular, Korean courts distinguish between “retirement-extension-type” and “retirement-maintenance-type” wage peak systems. Where wages are reduced without extending the retirement age (the retirement-maintenance type), the likelihood of invalidation is significantly higher unless a clear and reasonable justification exists. Such systems therefore require especially careful design. Ultimately, a wage peak system that merely satisfies formal requirements can result in serious financial and legal liabilities for the company. Practical Checkpoints for Companies and Decent Law Firm’s Support When operating a wage peak system, companies should comprehensively review the following points: Whether amendments to the rules of employment were properly approved in accordance with Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act, including obtaining consent from a labor union representing a majority of employees Whether individual consent from affected employees is required Whether substantive and practical measures corresponding to wage reductions have been established and are actually being implemented Even if a wage peak system is already in place, it is necessary to reassess whether the current operation complies with judicial standards. Responding after a dispute has arisen inevitably involves higher costs and risks. Accordingly, conducting legal review at the system design stage or during operational audits is the most practical way to protect the company. Decent Law Firm provides practical legal support tailored to each company’s organizational structure and HR framework, drawing on extensive advisory and dispute resolution experience with wage peak systems, led by attorneys with prior labor law and HR expertise. If your company is already involved in this issue or requires proactive risk management, we strongly recommend seeking legal advice—even on a preliminary basis.
