Case Overview In a dispute arising from the Phase 2 Main Facilities Construction Project for the Low- and Intermediate-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, the claimant sought KRW 24.8 billion in additional indirect costs, asserting that approximately 2,008 days (5.5 years) of construction delay—attributable to the respondent—gave rise to substantial extended overhead. While the respondent acknowledged the obligation to compensate for delay-related indirect costs, it consistently argued that the claimant’s calculation was excessive and overstated.Key IssuesComplex, multi‑layered expansion of indirect cost items due to long‑term delays Disputes regarding calculation methods, assumptions, expert valuation models, and evidentiary sufficiency Allocation of costs during overlapping periods with other contracts (duplication, apportionment, attribution) High‑level accounting, scheduling, and project‑controls analysis required to evaluate item-by-item claimsOne Law Partners, LLC’s StrategyComprehensive review of all schedules, cost breakdowns, manpower/equipment logs, site records, and expert reports Item‑by‑item rebuttal, challenging causation, quantifiability, and the absence of reasonable calculation grounds Systematic critique of expert assumptions and formulas, identifying overstated and duplicated cost components Clear articulation of cost attribution principles for periods where other construction contracts overlappedOutcome The arbitral tribunal accepted the majority of One Law Partners, LLC’s arguments, rejecting approximately KRW 14 billion of the KRW 24.8 billion claim, and recognizing only about KRW 10.8 billion. → More than 56% of the claimed amount was successfully defended, substantially reducing the client’s financial exposure.Significance This case demonstrates One Law Partners, LLC’s capability to deliver strong results in large-scale construction and infrastructure disputes involving extended overhead claims. The firm’s precise verification of expert methodologies, rigorous cost‑attribution analysis, and structured rebuttal of inflated cost items provide a practical benchmark for future long‑delay project disputes and risk‑management strategies.

Case Overview Since 2020, the National Tax Service (NTS) has implemented the “Small Building Appraisal Project” to enhance fairness in inheritance and gift taxation. Under this initiative, the NTS conducted retroactive appraisals on properties for which inheritance tax had already been properly reported and paid, resulting in additional tax assessments. Many taxpayers challenged these assessments in court, but legal precedents were unclear and inconsistent. Our StrategyKey Issues Raised: Challenged the constitutionality and legality of Article 49(1) proviso of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act. Legal Argument: Asserted that the provision violated the principle of tax legality and the hierarchy of laws under the Constitution. Evidence: Demonstrated, with concrete data, the absence of any “special circumstances” justifying retroactive appraisal.OutcomeCourt ruled that the proviso of Article 49(1) of the Enforcement Decree was unconstitutional and unlawful – a first-of-its-kind decision. NTS’s retroactive appraisal could not be recognized as market value; inheritance tax assessment of approximately KRW 10 billion was canceled and refunded. Established a legal basis for challenging similar assessments under the NTS appraisal project.Significance This landmark ruling is the first to invalidate the legal foundation of the NTS appraisal project. It sets a precedent for future cases and provides a clear standard for determining the illegality of tax assessments arising from retroactive appraisals, which are expected to expand to high-value apartments and luxury homes.

One Law Partners recently handled a case where a resolution adopted at a listed company’s shareholders’ meeting to amend its articles of incorporation and introduce a supermajority voting requirement—requiring approval by at least four-fifths of the total issued shares for the appointment or removal of directors—was declared invalid by the court.This ruling clarifies the illegality of excessively strengthening the statutory requirements for special resolutions under the Korean Commercial Act and carries significant implications for protecting minority shareholders’ rights and improving corporate governance.Key IssuesLegality of articles of incorporation adopting a supermajority voting requirement Whether the special resolution requirements under Article 434 of the Korean Commercial Act can be further tightened If so, what are the limits of such tightening?StrategyRigorous legal argumentation: Persuading the court on the illegality of the supermajority provision in the articles Research on relevant academic papers and lower court precedents Development of a well-structured legal reasoningOutcomeConfirmed invalidity of the shareholders’ resolution amending the articles to state: “When a shareholder proposal seeks to appoint or remove a director, approval by at least four-fifths of the total issued shares is required; the same threshold applies to any resolution amending this provision.” Established that the supermajority requirement violates the principle of shareholder equality and infringes on shareholder proposal rights Expected activation of minority shareholders’ rights to propose director appointments, enhancing participation in corporate management Anticipated increase in objections from minority shareholders against similar provisions in listed companies Contributed to improving corporate governance and protecting shareholder value

ONE LAW PARTNERS, LLC successfully represented A Bank in a case where the court ruled that the Asset Purchase Agreement does not constitute “standard terms” under the law. The plaintiff argued that “A Bank unilaterally drafted the agreement, making it unfair and invalid,” but the court dismissed this claim.Court’s Reasoning In the context of distressed asset transactions, provisions such as:Defining the scope and duration of liability Specifying which assets are covered by representations and warranties Establishing remedies in case of disputes are customary and essential in professional transactions. Therefore, the agreement used by A Bank was recognized as a standard contractual structure in specialized transactions, not a unilateral set of terms.Significance This ruling clarifies that standard contractual provisions in asset purchase agreements for non-performing loan sales cannot be mischaracterized as “standard terms.” It also demonstrates ONE LAW PARTNERS, LLC’s strong expertise in financial transactions and litigation.

The company extended the retirement age from 58 to 60 in 2017 and introduced a wage peak system through a collective agreement, reducing base salary from age 58.Retired employees claimed the system was invalid and sought compensation for lost wages and benefits.Key Issue: Whether the wage peak provisions remained valid after the collective agreement expired, either through implied renewal or incorporation into individual contracts.Case OutcomeThe court dismissed all claims by the plaintiffs, ruling that the wage peak system was valid. It found the system consistent with legal intent and not excessively disadvantageous to affected employees.Role of One Law PartnersConducted precise legal analysis of collective agreement interpretation and relevant labor law precedents Developed a fact-based, data-driven litigation strategy Minimized HR and compliance risks for the company while affirming the legitimacy of its employment policies