One Law Partners, LLC successfully overturned a trial court dismissal in a church internal governance dispute and church membership status confirmation action, securing a complete victory for the plaintiffs on appeal.1. Case OverviewThis case involved a dispute arising from disciplinary measures imposed by a church denomination’s General Assembly Judicial Committee, including removal from office, excommunication, and denial of church membership status. The plaintiffs sought confirmation that the Judicial Committee’s decision was void and requested judicial confirmation of their status as church members.The trial court dismissed the action, holding that the dispute concerned internal religious affairs and therefore fell outside the scope of judicial review. One Law Partners, LLC was retained at the appellate stage and comprehensively restructured the case. The appellate court ultimately reversed the trial court’s dismissal and granted all claims asserted by the plaintiffs.2. Key IssuesWhether decisions rendered by a religious organization's internal tribunal are subject to judicial reviewWhether the authority exercised and procedures followed by the General Assembly Judicial Committee complied with the denomination’s constitutionWhether the revocation of church membership and the disciplinary measures of removal and excommunication were validThe limits of judicial review in light of the autonomy of religious organizations3. Legal StrategyAttorneys Jong‑moon Park, Sun‑young Yoo, Seo‑young Kang, and Ju‑young Park of One Law Partners, LLC went beyond merely challenging the substantive fairness of the outcome.Instead, they adopted a strategy of comprehensively redesigning the structure of the case through a systematic analysis of the denomination’s constitution, disciplinary rules, implementing regulations, and an extensive review of the case record.The dispute involved multiple intertwined issues, including church membership qualifications, membership transfer procedures, jurisdiction of ecclesiastical tribunals, disciplinary procedures, appellate review mechanisms, and the proper balance between religious autonomy and judicial oversight.Because the case had already been dismissed at the trial level, the primary objective on appeal was to move the matter from a procedural dismissal to a substantive adjudication on the merits.To achieve this, the attorneys carefully compared the denomination’s constitutional provisions with the procedures that had actually been followed, meticulously reconstructed the factual record and evidentiary framework, and engaged in extensive legal argument demonstrating significant defects in the Judicial Committee’s decision.4. Significance of the DecisionThe appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal, declared the decision of the General Assembly Judicial Committee void, and confirmed that the plaintiffs retained their status as church members.This case confirms that not every dispute arising within a religious organization is automatically immune from judicial review.The decision also demonstrates how careful analysis of a denomination’s constitutional and procedural framework can achieve an appropriate balance between the autonomy of religious organizations and the protection of individual rights.The case is particularly significant because One Law Partners, LLC was engaged only after the trial court had dismissed the action. Through detailed analysis of complex ecclesiastical constitutional issues and a voluminous record accumulated over years of dispute, the firm successfully secured a complete victory on appeal.Attorney Jong‑moon Park | jmpark@onelawpartners.com Attorney Sun‑young Rhyu | syrhyu@onelawpartners.com Attorney Seo‑young Kang | sykang@onelawpartners.com Attorney Ju‑young Park | jypark2@onelawpartners.comPublic Relations Team, One Law Partners, LLC | pr@onelawpartners.com

One Law Partners, LLC successfully represented A Co., Ltd., the Korean branch of a multinational logistics and shipping agency company, in administrative litigation seeking the revocation of a Labor Relations Commission decision that had granted relief to an employee dismissed for embezzlement.1. Case OverviewEmployee B served as the manager of a regional office and was responsible for shipping agency operations. During a review of expenses incurred at various ports, the branch manager requested that B explain the settlement method and specific use of waste disposal expenses.However, B refused to provide an explanation. As a result, A Co., Ltd. dismissed B on the grounds of embezzlement of company funds. B subsequently filed an application for relief with the Regional Labor Relations Commission, alleging wrongful dismissal. Although the Labor Relations Commission determined that disciplinary grounds existed, it concluded that dismissal was excessive and granted the application for relief.After the Central Labor Relations Commission upheld the same conclusion on review, A Co., Ltd. filed an administrative lawsuit against the Chairperson of the Central Labor Relations Commission.2. Key IssuesThe principal issues in this case were:Whether sufficient grounds for disciplinary action existed;Whether the dismissal constituted an abuse or excess of discretionary authority in determining the appropriate level of discipline.3. Legal StrategyAttorneys Seok‑yun Jung and Jung‑min Ha of One Law Partners, LLC emphasized that B's conduct constituted a serious disciplinary violation under the company's work rules because B had received portions of waste disposal fees in cash, used the funds at personal discretion, and handled them improperly.The attorneys further argued that waste disposal procedures require customs declarations and import procedures under the Customs Act and, in the case of wood waste, mandatory reporting and plant quarantine procedures under the Plant Protection Act.They demonstrated that B had processed such matters arbitrarily in violation of applicable legal requirements.In addition, the attorneys highlighted that:B maintained no records or accounting documents capable of verifying how the waste disposal expenses had been used and disbursed;B unlawfully handled company operations, artificially reduced costs, and appropriated the resulting differences over an extended period;B's non‑cooperative attitude obstructed the company's internal investigation and suggested intentional efforts to conceal misconduct.Based on these facts, the attorneys argued that the dismissal could not be regarded as an abuse or excess of the employer's disciplinary discretion.4. Significance of the DecisionThe court accepted the arguments presented by One Law Partners, LLC and revoked the Labor Relations Commission's decision granting relief for wrongful dismissal.The court rejected all arguments advanced by B and the defendant, holding that B's conduct exposed A Co., Ltd. to significant administrative and criminal liability, contractual risks, and reputational harm, and therefore did not constitute wrongful dismissal.This decision is significant because it clearly recognizes the legal and business risks arising from employee misconduct and affirms an employer's authority to impose dismissal where serious violations expose the company to substantial legal and operational consequences.Attorney Seok‑yun Jung | syjeong@onelawpartners.com Attorney Jung‑min Ha | jmha@onelawpartners.comPublic Relations Team, One Law Partners, LLC | pr@onelawpartners.com

One Law Partners, LLC successfully represented S Co., Ltd., a defense industry components manufacturer, in litigation against the Commissioner of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), obtaining a judgment fully revoking a debarment order restricting the company's eligibility to participate in public tenders.1. Case OverviewThe plaintiff entered into a procurement (manufacturing) contract with DAPA for six radar component items valued at approximately KRW 1.75 billion and successfully delivered five of the six contracted items. However, the plaintiff was unable to deliver one component intended for a console and radar set because it could not obtain the embedded software required to be installed in the product.DAPA not only forfeited approximately KRW 32 million in contract security corresponding to a 55% non-performance rate, but also imposed a five-month debarment pursuant to Article 27(1)9(b) of the National Contract Act. One Law Partners, LLC subsequently filed a lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiff seeking revocation of the debarment order.2. Key IssuesThe principal issues were:Whether responsibility for the failure to obtain the embedded software, which was essential for contractual performance, rested with DAPA as the contracting authority or with the plaintiff as the contractor; andWhether the plaintiff's non-performance constituted conduct falling within the category of a party 'likely to impair proper contract performance without justifiable cause' under Article 27(1)9(b) of the National Contract Act.3. Legal Strategy· Demonstrating That the Drawings Expressly Indicated the Software Was Already InstalledThe defense established that the technical drawings provided with the tender documents expressly stated in the remarks section that the software was 'installed.' Based on the ordinary meaning of the term 'installed,' the plaintiff reasonably understood that the software had already been incorporated and would therefore be available through the contracting authority.· Establishing DAPA's Own Acknowledgment of Its ResponsibilityThe defense highlighted communications in which DAPA responded to the plaintiff's requests for technical materials by stating that it was coordinating with the system contractor and would provide information once obtained. The defense also noted that DAPA did not immediately terminate the contract following the delivery deadline, but instead continued to request performance on the assumption that contract completion remained possible. These circumstances demonstrated that DAPA itself understood that it bore responsibility for providing the relevant software.· Proving the Practical Impossibility of Obtaining the SoftwareThe embedded software constituted a military support system security asset originally developed and owned by a third-party company around 2002. The defense established through software product specifications, checksum analyses, and DAPA's own defense specification guidelines that the plaintiff could neither purchase the software from a third party nor independently develop a substitute version.· Demonstrating DAPA's Regulatory Obligation to Provide the Software Relying on DAPA regulations, standard contract provisions for weapons-system development projects, and government procurement guidelines, the defense argued that software developed with public funds should belong to the State and that DAPA had a corresponding obligation to provide such materials to the contractor when necessary for performance.· Clarifying the Legal Nature of the Tender Notice The defense argued that a tender notice constitutes merely an invitation to make an offer, rather than contractual terms themselves, citing Supreme Court precedent. Accordingly, statements contained in the tender notice regarding the availability of materials at a "commercially obtainable level" did not become contractual obligations binding upon the contractor. The defense further established that the agreement was a work contract rather than a simple sales transaction, relying on provisions addressing price-adjustment mechanisms.· Invoking the Principles of Protection of Legitimate Expectations and Proportionality The defense argued that the plaintiff reasonably relied upon DAPA's representations and that such reliance deserved protection under the Framework Act on Administrative Affairs. The attorneys further contended that DAPA abused its discretion by imposing the most severe sanction available even though less restrictive alternatives, including an administrative surcharge, were available under the National Contract Act.4. Significance of the DecisionThe court accepted the plaintiff's arguments and found that:The drawings expressly referred to the software as 'installed,' making it reasonable for the plaintiff to believe that DAPA would provide access to it;Even DAPA itself was unable to obtain the software due to the non-cooperation of the original software developer;The software developer failed to respond to the court's requests for information, further demonstrating that the plaintiff could not realistically have obtained the software;The tender documentation concerned only certain radar hardware, while the software was neither reflected in the contract price nor included in the delivery schedule;The plaintiff successfully delivered all five remaining contract items and repeatedly requested the necessary materials in an effort to perform the contract.Based on these findings, the court concluded that the plaintiff could not be regarded as a party 'likely to impair proper contract performance without justifiable cause.' Accordingly, the court held that the legal grounds for the debarment order did not exist and revoked the administrative disposition in its entirety.This decision is significant because it clarifies that, in defense procurement projects, responsibility for providing essential technical materials, particularly embedded software, generally rests with the contracting authority. The ruling further confirms that broad disclaimer language included in tender notices cannot automatically transfer all contractual risks to defense contractors.As such, the decision is expected to serve as an important precedent concerning the contracting authority's obligation to provide technical materials and the meaning of “justifiable cause” in debarment proceedings involving defense industry contractors.Attorney Jeong‑woo Kang | jwkang@onelawpartners.com Attorney Jeong‑pyo Ko | jpgoh@onelawpartners.comPublic Relations Team, One Law Partners, LLC | pr@onelawpartners.com

Case OverviewOne Law Partners, LLC represented a food company in responding to a corrective order issued by a local government authority for an alleged violation of the Food Labelling and Advertising Act.The corrective order required the company to change its product name (brand name) on the grounds that it could potentially mislead consumers regarding the product's medical efficacy. Because the order directly affected one of the company's core brand assets, it posed a significant threat to the business.Accordingly, One Law Partners, LLC filed both an administrative lawsuit seeking revocation of the corrective order and an application for a stay of execution. The firm successfully obtained a court order staying the effectiveness of the corrective order.Key IssuesLegality of the corrective order issued under the Food Labelling and Advertising ActWhether there was sufficient urgency and a risk of irreparable harm warranting a stay of executionLegal StrategyDemonstrated that immediate compliance with the corrective order would result in urgent and irreparable harm to the companyArgued that maintaining the effectiveness of the corrective order was not necessary when balancing the public interest against the substantial harm that would result from enforcement of the orderEstablished that compliance with the corrective order was effectively impossible under the circumstances due to force majeure factors, including disruptions arising from the Iran conflict and related external conditionsSignificance of the DecisionFollowing proceedings at both the trial and appellate levels concerning the stay application, the effectiveness of the corrective order was suspended until 30 days after the date of the first-instance judgment in the merits action.As a result, the plaintiff food company was able to continue using its product name and valuable brand assets while pursuing the underlying administrative litigation.This ensured the practical effectiveness of the merits proceeding, allowed the company to continue its business operations, and successfully protected it from substantial economic losses.Attorney In-sun Ko | isgo@onelawpartners.com Attorney Han-mook Choi | hmchoi@onelawpartners.com​‌Public Relations Team, One Law Partners, LLC | pr@onelawpartners.com

One Law Partners, LLC successfully represented a trust company in litigation brought by the contractor of a mixed-use residential and commercial development project conducted under a managed land trust structure, in which the contractor sought reimbursement of project-related service fees and charges that it had paid on behalf of the project.This case serves as an important precedent clarifying the allocation of rights and obligations under trust agreements and succession agreements.1. Case OverviewThe plaintiff, a contractor engaged in the construction of a mixed-use residential and commercial building, entered into a managed land trust agreement with the trustor, developer, and the defendant trust company acting as trustee. The plaintiff subsequently entered into a construction contract with the developer, and during the course of the project, a separate succession agreement was executed between the trust company and the developer.The plaintiff later paid certain supervision service fees and project-related charges on behalf of the project and demanded reimbursement from the defendant trust company. When the trust company refused to disburse funds, the plaintiff filed suit, alleging that the trust company was obligated to reimburse those expenses.2. Key IssuesThe central issue in this case was whether the plaintiff could seek reimbursement under the legal doctrine of management of affairs without mandate (negotiorum gestio).The plaintiff argued that:The trust company was obligated under the trust agreement to pay expenses that ranked as first-priority or third-priority disbursements;Because the plaintiff paid such expenses on the trust company's behalf, the requirements for management of affairs without mandate were satisfied.The plaintiff further argued that:The trust company breached its obligations under the trust agreement by refusing reimbursement without justification and was therefore liable for damages; orAlternatively, because the plaintiff's payments and approvals increased the value of the project, the trust company obtained a benefit and should therefore return such benefit under principles of unjust enrichment.3. Legal StrategyAttorneys Eun-young Jung and Seong-hoon Park of One Law Partners, LLC vigorously argued that the doctrine of management of affairs without mandate was inapplicable.The attorneys emphasized that, for such a claim to succeed, the plaintiff must have managed another person's affairs with the intention of doing so. In this case, however, the expenses advanced by the plaintiff were incurred solely in connection with the plaintiff's own contractual obligations and business interests. Accordingly, the trust company had no obligation to reimburse those payments.The attorneys further argued that:The trust company had no obligation to disburse funds unless the specific requirements set forth in the trust agreement had been satisfied;Because those conditions had not been met, no claim for damages could arise from the trust company's refusal to make payment; andThe trust company had not received any actual economic benefit from the plaintiff's voluntary payment of the expenses and therefore could not be liable under a theory of unjust enrichment.4. Significance of the DecisionThe court accepted all of the defendant's arguments and dismissed the plaintiff's claims in their entirety. The court held that the obligation to pay the relevant expenses rested with the developer or the plaintiff contractor under the terms of the trust arrangement and that the requirements for management of affairs without mandate were not satisfied.The court also concluded that:The trust company did not breach any duty by refusing the request for fund disbursement;The plaintiff failed to establish any compensable damage caused by the trust company's conduct.In addition, the court recognized that the trust company, as trustee, was merely required to manage trust property within the scope authorized by the trust agreement and was subject to significant contractual limitations. Because the plaintiff still retained the possibility of recovering the expenses through the disposition and settlement of trust assets, the court found that no definitive loss had yet occurred.This decision is significant because it confirms that a trustee must comply with the disbursement requirements expressly set forth in a trust agreement and has no obligation to make payments where those requirements have not been satisfied. The ruling further makes clear that under such circumstances, claims based on reimbursement of expenses, damages, or unjust enrichment cannot be sustained.Attorney Eun-young Jung | eyjung@onelawpartners.com Attorney Seong-hoon Park | shpark@onelawpartners.comPublic Relations Team, One Law Partners, LLC | pr@onelawpartners.com