Case OverviewThis case concerns an administrative dispute in which a subcontract participation restriction was imposed by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport following an administrative fine for violation of foreign employment restrictions.ONE Law Firm represented the plaintiff in administrative litigation and successfully obtained a stay of execution (injunctive relief) against the subcontract participation restriction. As a result, the plaintiff preserved its eligibility to participate in tenders related to the Third New Town development projects.Subcontract participation restrictions have a broader scope of sanction than ordinary bidding restrictions, as they apply not only to public procurement projects but also to projects where the prime contractor is a public entity. Despite this expansive impact, the court granted a full stay of execution, thereby securing the plaintiff’s opportunity to bid on Third New Town construction projects.Key Legal IssuesPotential violations of the Administrative Procedures Act Unlawfulness of the uniform sanction standards set forth in Article 33(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry Whether the administrative authority abused or exceeded its discretion by imposing a mechanical sanction without considering specific circumstances, including:the background of the violation degree of culpability mitigating factorsLegal StrategyDemonstrated irreparable harm and urgency, emphasizing that exclusion from Third New Town tenders would result in non-recoverable damage Substantiated structural labor shortages endemic to the reinforced concrete construction industry Argued that the Ministry imposed sanctions on dozens of companies without prior notice, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act Challenged the constitutionality and legality of the relevant provisions of the Enforcement Decree forming the basis of the sanctionCourt DecisionUnder the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, duplicate violations of foreign employment restrictions automatically trigger subcontract participation restrictions.Currently, more than 85% of the top 50 reinforced concrete construction firms have received identical sanctions, rendering their participation in Third New Town tenders uncertain.In this case, however, the court ordered that the subcontract participation restriction be suspended until two months after the date of the first‑instance judgment on the merits, thereby preserving the plaintiff’s eligibility to participate in Third New Town bidding procedures.Significance of the DecisionThird New Town construction projects represent the largest construction procurement opportunities in 2026.While multiple identical sanctions are currently under challenge in pending substantive litigation, this injunction decision carries particular legal and practical importance, as it directly addresses the immediate exclusion risk faced by construction companies.This successful outcome has significant ripple effects across the construction industry, providing a critical precedent for companies subject to similar sanctions and reinforcing judicial scrutiny over rigid, uniform administrative enforcement.

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