Key Points and Implications of the Recent Supreme Court Plenary Decision on Ordinary Wages

On December 19, 2024, the Supreme Court issued two plenary decision rulings on ordinary wages. This ruling is the first in about 11 years since the Supreme Court’s en banc decision on December 18, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “2013 en banc decision”) on case 2012Da89399, changing the criteria for determining ordinary wages for the first time in about 11 years.

In particular, this full bench ruling excluded “steadiness” from the criteria for defining ordinary wages, thereby requiring that the determination of whether something constitutes ordinary wages be based solely on “payment for prescribed work,” “regularity,” and “uniformity.” Accordingly, it was judged that the ordinary wage nature of “bonuses conditional on employment” and “bonuses conditional on the number of working days” could be recognized. This change in precedent is expected to have a major impact on companies’ personnel and labor management policies as well as labor-management relations.

I. The Main Points of This Plenary Decision

1. Overview and Meaning of the Case

A. Case No. 2020Da247190 (Subject Judgment 1): The defendant is a company engaged in the insurance business, and the plaintiff (the selected party) and the selected persons (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the plaintiffs”) are employees of the defendant who have either retired or are currently employed.

The plaintiffs argued that among the allowances received from the defendant, (i) the employment-conditional bonus (regular bonuses paid on a bi-monthly basis, holiday bonuses, summer bonuses), and (ii) the head-of-organization performance bonus (with a minimum of 200,000 won), all constitute ordinary wages, and claimed the difference after subtracting the amount already paid from the overtime pay recalculated based on the ordinary wages for the period from 2013 to 2017, including the allowances mentioned above.

On the other hand, the defendant argued, on the grounds that the plaintiffs, as employees engaged in managerial and supervisory duties, had entered into a comprehensive wage agreement, and that even if there was an obligation to pay statutory overtime pay, both (i) the employment-conditional bonus and (ii) the agency head performance bonus would not constitute ordinary wages.

In response, the lower court’s judgment (i) held that the bonus in this case constituted “base pay or an allowance equivalent to base pay,” and that the employment condition attached to the bonus was invalid and therefore constituted ordinary wages; (ii) it also recognized that the director’s performance bonus constituted ordinary wages for the minimum payment portion.

b. Case No. 2023Da302838 (subject judgment 2)

The defendant is a company engaged in the manufacturing and sales of vehicles and parts, and the plaintiff is an employee of the defendant and a member of the D Labor Union, E Branch. The following concerns the working days condition in the detailed rules for the implementation of bonus payments related to the bonus in this case.

[Enforcement Rules for Bonus Payment] (hereinafter referred to as the “Bonus Rules”)

5.2. The number of days eligible for the standard-period bonus payment is as follows: 1) For the bi-monthly regular bonus, the period is two months from the 1st day of the month prior to payment to the end of the payment month.2) The Lunar New Year bonus is calculated from the month of Chuseok until the day before the Lunar New Year.3) The Chuseok bonus period is from the month of the Lunar New Year until before Chuseok.4) The summer bonus period is considered to be from the start date of the previous year’s summer vacation to the day before the start of the current year’s summer vacation.6.4. Excluded from Payment (hereinafter “working days condition”) 1) Those who joined within the reference period and worked less than 15 days 2) Those who worked less than 15 days due to various reasons such as attendance without or with approval, unauthorized absence, unpaid union activity hours, strikes, temporary closures, personal standby, leave of absence, suspension, and the union’s full-time period (unpaid), etc

The plaintiffs argued that the working days condition in the bonus rule—which provides that only those who have worked 15 days or more within the reference period are entitled to receive the bonus in question (hereinafter referred to as the “working days condition”)—is invalid, and that the bonus in question constitutes ordinary wages. They requested the defendant to include the bonus in the calculation base and to pay the difference between it and the recalculated allowance.In response, the lower court held that it was difficult to regard the working days condition as invalid, and that the bonus in question should be paid only if the additional condition of “working at least 15 days during the reference period” was fulfilled. Accordingly, the court found that because it was uncertain whether the payment condition had been fulfilled or whether the right to claim payment had arisen at the time the employee provided labor, the payment was not fixed, and therefore the bonus in question did not constitute ordinary wages.2. Issues and Summary of the Plenary Decision: The Supreme Court excluded “fixedness,” which had been established as a marker of the concept of ordinary wages in the previous 2013 plenary decision, from the criteria for determining ordinary wages, and newly stated that “ordinary wages refer to wages agreed to be paid regularly and uniformly as compensation for prescribed work…” It was held that wages prescribed to be paid regularly and uniformly in return for a worker’s full provision of prescribed work are ordinary wages regardless of the presence or possibility of achievement of any attached conditions attached thereto.

a. Abolition of the concept of “fixedness” among the indicators of the concept of ordinary wages

(Existing legal doctrine) The 2013 plenary decision held that whether a wage falls within ordinary wages should be judged based on its objective nature, that is, whether the wage is a payment made to the employee in exchange for prescribed work, and whether it is paid regularly, uniformly, and fixedly. It further stated that, among the above conceptual indicators, the fixedness refers to the characteristic that, regardless of whether the wage is related to the employee’s work, their performance, achievements, and other additional conditions (conditions such as whether the employee is working overtime, for which the achievement is unclear) are certain that the wage will be paid regardless of them.

(The Abolition of the Concept of Fixity) However, the new plenary decision stated that ordinary wages are both a legal concept and a mandatory concept, and therefore, while faithfully adhering to the definitions of the law, they must be interpreted so that the parties cannot arbitrarily alter them. For the following reasons, the concept of “fixity” in the conceptual hallmark of ordinary wages was discarded.

1) (In accordance with the law) “fixedness” has no legal basis anywhere in the law, including Article 6, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, which defines ordinary wages, and that it is unreasonable to require “fixedness” as a conceptual marker of ordinary wages—meaning “whether wages are paid or whether the amount of payment is predetermined in advance”—without any legal basis, thereby unjustly narrowing the scope of ordinary wages.② (Forcefulness) If fixity is recognized as a concept marker, then by allowing the party to add a payment condition such as employment conditions and so on, and to easily exclude that wage from ordinary wages, the forcefulness of ordinary wages is negated.③ (Reflection of the value of prescribed work) Ordinary wages are a concept that evaluates the “value of prescribed work,” so regardless of actual work performed, the value of prescribed work itself must be fully reflected, and the employee assumed by ordinary wages is “an employee who fully provides prescribed work.”

On December 19, 2024, the Supreme Court issued two plenary decision rulings on ordinary wages. This ruling is the first in about 11 years since the Supreme Court’s en banc decision on December 18, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “2013 en banc decision”) on case 2012Da89399, changing the criteria for determining ordinary wages for the first time in about 11 years.

In particular, this full bench ruling excluded “steadiness” from the criteria for defining ordinary wages, thereby requiring that the determination of whether something constitutes ordinary wages be based solely on “payment for prescribed work,” “regularity,” and “uniformity.” Accordingly, it was judged that the ordinary wage nature of “bonuses conditional on employment” and “bonuses conditional on the number of working days” could be recognized. This change in precedent is expected to have a major impact on companies’ personnel and labor management policies as well as labor-management relations.

I. The Main Points of This Plenary Decision

1. Overview and Meaning of the Case

A. Case No. 2020Da247190 (Subject Judgment 1): The defendant is a company engaged in the insurance business, and the plaintiff (the selected party) and the selected persons (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the plaintiffs”) are employees of the defendant who have either retired or are currently employed.

The plaintiffs argued that among the allowances received from the defendant, (i) the employment-conditional bonus (regular bonuses paid on a bi-monthly basis, holiday bonuses, summer bonuses), and (ii) the head-of-organization performance bonus (with a minimum of 200,000 won), all constitute ordinary wages, and claimed the difference after subtracting the amount already paid from the overtime pay recalculated based on the ordinary wages for the period from 2013 to 2017, including the allowances mentioned above.

On the other hand, the defendant argued, on the grounds that the plaintiffs, as employees engaged in managerial and supervisory duties, had entered into a comprehensive wage agreement, and that even if there was an obligation to pay statutory overtime pay, both (i) the employment-conditional bonus and (ii) the agency head performance bonus would not constitute ordinary wages.

In response, the lower court’s judgment (i) held that the bonus in this case constituted “base pay or an allowance equivalent to base pay,” and that the employment condition attached to the bonus was invalid and therefore constituted ordinary wages; (ii) it also recognized that the director’s performance bonus constituted ordinary wages for the minimum payment portion.

b. Case No. 2023Da302838 (subject judgment 2)

The defendant is a company engaged in the manufacturing and sales of vehicles and parts, and the plaintiff is an employee of the defendant and a member of the D Labor Union, E Branch. The following concerns the working days condition in the detailed rules for the implementation of bonus payments related to the bonus in this case.

[Enforcement Rules for Bonus Payment] (hereinafter referred to as the “Bonus Rules”)

5.2. The number of days eligible for the standard-period bonus payment is as follows: 1) For the bi-monthly regular bonus, the period is two months from the 1st day of the month prior to payment to the end of the payment month.2) The Lunar New Year bonus is calculated from the month of Chuseok until the day before the Lunar New Year.3) The Chuseok bonus period is from the month of the Lunar New Year until before Chuseok.4) The summer bonus period is considered to be from the start date of the previous year’s summer vacation to the day before the start of the current year’s summer vacation.6.4. Excluded from Payment (hereinafter “working days condition”) 1) Those who joined within the reference period and worked less than 15 days 2) Those who worked less than 15 days due to various reasons such as attendance without or with approval, unauthorized absence, unpaid union activity hours, strikes, temporary closures, personal standby, leave of absence, suspension, and the union’s full-time period (unpaid), etc

The plaintiffs argued that the working days condition in the bonus rule—which provides that only those who have worked 15 days or more within the reference period are entitled to receive the bonus in question (hereinafter referred to as the “working days condition”)—is invalid, and that the bonus in question constitutes ordinary wages. They requested the defendant to include the bonus in the calculation base and to pay the difference between it and the recalculated allowance.In response, the lower court held that it was difficult to regard the working days condition as invalid, and that the bonus in question should be paid only if the additional condition of “working at least 15 days during the reference period” was fulfilled. Accordingly, the court found that because it was uncertain whether the payment condition had been fulfilled or whether the right to claim payment had arisen at the time the employee provided labor, the payment was not fixed, and therefore the bonus in question did not constitute ordinary wages.2. Issues and Summary of the Plenary Decision: The Supreme Court excluded “fixedness,” which had been established as a marker of the concept of ordinary wages in the previous 2013 plenary decision, from the criteria for determining ordinary wages, and newly stated that “ordinary wages refer to wages agreed to be paid regularly and uniformly as compensation for prescribed work…” It was held that wages prescribed to be paid regularly and uniformly in return for a worker’s full provision of prescribed work are ordinary wages regardless of the presence or possibility of achievement of any attached conditions attached thereto.

a. Abolition of the concept of “fixedness” among the indicators of the concept of ordinary wages

(Existing legal doctrine) The 2013 plenary decision held that whether a wage falls within ordinary wages should be judged based on its objective nature, that is, whether the wage is a payment made to the employee in exchange for prescribed work, and whether it is paid regularly, uniformly, and fixedly. It further stated that, among the above conceptual indicators, the fixedness refers to the characteristic that, regardless of whether the wage is related to the employee’s work, their performance, achievements, and other additional conditions (conditions such as whether the employee is working overtime, for which the achievement is unclear) are certain that the wage will be paid regardless of them.

(The Abolition of the Concept of Fixity) However, the new plenary decision stated that ordinary wages are both a legal concept and a mandatory concept, and therefore, while faithfully adhering to the definitions of the law, they must be interpreted so that the parties cannot arbitrarily alter them. For the following reasons, the concept of “fixity” in the conceptual hallmark of ordinary wages was discarded.

1) (In accordance with the law) “fixedness” has no legal basis anywhere in the law, including Article 6, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, which defines ordinary wages, and that it is unreasonable to require “fixedness” as a conceptual marker of ordinary wages—meaning “whether wages are paid or whether the amount of payment is predetermined in advance”—without any legal basis, thereby unjustly narrowing the scope of ordinary wages.② (Forcefulness) If fixity is recognized as a concept marker, then by allowing the party to add a payment condition such as employment conditions and so on, and to easily exclude that wage from ordinary wages, the forcefulness of ordinary wages is negated.③ (Reflection of the value of prescribed work) Ordinary wages are a concept that evaluates the “value of prescribed work,” so regardless of actual work performed, the value of prescribed work itself must be fully reflected, and the employee assumed by ordinary wages is “an employee who fully provides prescribed work.”

However, the existing precedent’s view that fixed-term employment is denied if the payment of wages is linked to whether the conditions are met is improper, because the actual working factor affects the concept of ordinary wages.④ (Possibility of prior calculation) Ordinary wages are a conceptual tool for calculating statutory allowances, so they should be calculable before providing extended work or similar conditions. This possibility of pre-determined calculation can be secured by excluding future elements that cannot be determined in advance and by remaining faithful to the prescriptive concept of “the full provision of prescribed work.” The previous precedent had the problem of attempting to determine whether ordinary wages should be established in advance based on whether wages were paid or whether the amount of payment was determined.5) (Policy alignment) Although ordinary wages should align with the Labor Standards Act’s policy objective of suppressing overtime, night, and holiday work, the concept of fixity unjustly narrows the scope of ordinary wages, thereby suppressing overtime work and failing to align with the Labor Standards Act’s intent to provide corresponding compensation.

B. The New Concept of Ordinary Wages and the Criteria for Determination

This full bench ruling states, “ordinary wages refer to wages agreed to be paid regularly and uniformly as compensation for prescribed work.” The court ruled that wages prescribed to be paid regularly and uniformly in return for a worker’s full provision of prescribed work are, regardless of the presence or possibility of fulfillment of any attached conditions, equivalent to ordinary wages, thereby redefining the concept of ordinary wages.

It was also stated that conditions attached to wages, such as the requirement of employment, may be considered one of the factors that may negate the objective nature of the wage in the process of substantially judging its objective characteristics, such as the consideration of the consideration of prescribed work, its regularity, and uniformity. However, it was also decided that merely the uncertainty of whether the condition is fulfilled cannot be regarded as negating the ordinary wage nature, and the following judgment was made regarding the wage items that are mainly of concern.

1) (Conditionally Employed Wages) The mere fact that the employee is employed is an inherent premise for providing prescribed work under the employment contract, and therefore, the mere circumstance of imposing the condition that the employee must remain employed at a specific time to receive a certain wage does not negate the wage’s consideration of prescribed work or its nature as ordinary wages.② (Conditional wages for the number of working days) (i) If the employee fully provides prescribed work, the ordinary wage character of the wage is not denied merely because the conditions to be met—namely, the requirement that the number of working days is within the prescribed number of working days—are attached. Even if the actual number of working days of an employee does not reach the prescribed number of working days and the employee does not receive conditional wages for the number of working days, such wages must still be included in the ordinary wage and used to calculate the allowance as long as they have the characteristics of prescribed work compensation, regularity, and uniformity. (ii) On the other hand, conditional wages for the number of working days exceeding the prescribed number of working days do not constitute ordinary wages, because they are compensation for additional work beyond the prescribed working days.③ (Performance bonus) Since performance bonuses are paid only upon achieving certain work performance or evaluation results, it is generally difficult to regard them as compensation for prescribed work, and therefore they do not constitute ordinary wages. However, the amount fixed to be paid as a minimum sum regardless of work performance corresponds to the compensation for prescribed work.

c. Whether each allowance corresponds to ordinary wages on a case-by-case basis

1) Case 2020Da247190 (subject judgment 1)

In conclusion, the subject judgment changed the existing legal principles concerning the concept of ordinary wages, discarded the concept of “fixedness” that had been central to ordinary wage disputes, and ruled that (i) the employment conditionality bonus in question (regular bonus, holiday bonus, summer bonus), and (ii) the agency head’s performance bonus (with a monthly floor of 200,000 KRW) all constitute ordinary wages.

> Regarding this case, the conditional bonus for employment (regular bonus, holiday bonus, summer bonus) (affirmative) argued that the defendant, in the salary regulations and the wage agreement, attached a condition to the bonus stating that “the bonus shall be paid only to employees who are still employed as of the bonus payment date, and shall not be paid to employees who retired before the payment date,” and therefore, because it is not fixed, it does not constitute ordinary wages.

The appellate court held that the bonus in question (i) was (i) a predetermined amount to be paid regularly and continuously as wages, (ii) to be paid as compensation for prescribed work, and (iii) as “fixed wage-type wages” in light of the wage component ratio, payment frequency, etc., and judged that, in conclusion, the validity of the employment condition could not be recognized, making it fixed and equivalent to ordinary wages.

However, in the case of the judgment in question, although the conclusion that it constitutes ordinary wages is the same, regardless of whether the employment condition is valid or whether the condition is fulfilled, the new concept and legal principles of ordinary wages that abolish “fixedness” were applied, and it was held that the bonus in this case constitutes wages agreed to be paid regularly and uniformly as compensation for prescribed work, and therefore ordinary wages are recognized.

1) (Structure of the bonus in this case) According to the salary regulations in this case, the defendant is required to pay the employees a bonus calculated based on the standard salary (base salary, overtime pay, job allowance) for each even-numbered month (6 times a year), 100% for each month, 100% for each holiday (2 times a year), and 50% for summer (1 time a year), and although it is called a “bonus,” it does not require any separate performance in addition to labor provision, and it is stipulated that 850% of the total standard salary be paid in nine installments annually.② (Judgment on the subject judgment) In light of the new legal principles of ordinary wages, the bonus in question, which is a fixed amount equivalent to 850% of the standard salary and is paid in installments at regular intervals, constitutes ordinary wages paid regularly and uniformly as compensation for prescribed work, notwithstanding the employment condition. Although the lower court was mistaken in treating fixity as a conceptual indicator of ordinary wages and making judgments on that premise, the lower court’s conclusion in recognizing the bonus in question as ordinary wages is justified. There is no error in the judgment that affected it, such as a misunderstanding of the legal principles concerning ordinary wages.

> Performance bonus in this case (the portion of the head’s monthly performance bonus floor wage of 200,000 KRW) (affirmative)

1) (Relevant legal principle) Performance bonuses paid according to an employee’s work performance must be granted only if certain work performance or evaluation results are met; therefore, even if fixedness is excluded from the conceptual mark of ordinary wages under the new legal principle, it was judged that it generally does not possess the “compensation for prescribed work” element and therefore does not qualify as ordinary wages. However, the minimum payment made regardless of work performance was regarded as compensation for prescribed work and was recognized as ordinary wages.

Therefore, if a minimum payment is fixed, such as in cases where a certain amount is paid even if the work performance is rated at the lowest grade, the minimum wage should be regarded as included within the ordinary wage.

② (Judgment on the subject judgment) In the defendant’s regulations concerning seniority-based performance bonuses, a minimum guaranteed amount of 200,000 KRW per month was stipulated for agency heads such as branch managers. Accordingly, the Court held that although the title was “performance bonus” and there were additional employment conditions attached, since a minimum guaranteed amount of 200,000 won per month had been fixed regardless of work performance, that limit (200,000 won per month) constituted compensation for prescribed work and thus amounted to ordinary wages.

2) Case 2023Da302838 (subject judgment 2) The subject judgment held that the conditional bonus for the working days condition in this case is subject to the law of ordinary wages, which applies to all employees who can fully perform prescribed work, because it is attached to the condition that does not meet the prescribed number of prescribed working days corresponding to the reference period. Accordingly, it was decided that, in accordance with the new ordinary wage doctrine described earlier, all such bonuses would be considered ordinary wages.

> Conditional bonus for the number of working days in this case (positive)

1) (Structure of the bonus in this case) Structure of the bonus in this case: In accordance with the bonus detailed rules, employees whose number of working days within each reference period is 15 days or more are subject to this structure. In even months, each is paid 100% of the reference salary, and during Lunar New Year, Chuseok, and summer vacation, 50% of the reference salary is paid. The total reference salary (ordinary wage) of 750% is to be paid in nine installments.② (Judgment on the subject judgment) In light of the new ordinary wage doctrine, the 15 working days required by the bonus in question, which is a fixed amount equal to 750% of the standard salary and paid in installments at regular intervals, does not reach the prescribed number of prescribed working days for each reference period; therefore, if the employee fully provides prescribed work, the number of working days required corresponds to the number of such days. Therefore, regardless of the working days condition, it constitutes ordinary wages paid regularly and uniformly as compensation for prescribed work. However, the appellate court held that the bonus in question is payable only if the working days condition is fulfilled, and therefore, lacking “fixedness,” it judged that the bonus in question does not constitute ordinary wages. This is a legal error in the appellate court’s judgment, and it is hereby reversed and remanded.

D. Scope of Effect of Changes in Case Law and New Legal Principles (applied from the calculation of ordinary wages after the date of judgment, but retroactively applied to parallel cases currently under trial) The judgment subject to change was the 2013 plenary decision and other existing court rulings, which were changed within the scope that contradicted the view of this judgment. However, the scope of effect of the new legal principles set forth in the judgment was explained as follows.

(The principle of future effect) The subject judgment is a ruling that redefines the concept of ordinary wages, which forms the foundation of the wage system, and it is certain that it will have a significant practical impact on numerous legal relationships. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that this case constituted an extremely exceptional circumstance in which the need to protect trust in the changing precedent is overwhelmingly stronger than the need to retroactively apply the new precedent; therefore, for legal stability and protection of trust, the new legal principle shall apply starting with the calculation of ordinary wages after the date of this judgment.

(Scope of exceptional retroactive effect) However, in cases where the legal principle by which the judgment is changed is the premise of the trial and the question of whether ordinary wages apply is contested and is still before trial in court—that is, in cases that have already been filed and are before trial—this new legal principle, which is inherently new to the nature of the judiciary and applies retroactively for the purpose of remedying rights, has been applied, and therefore the judgment shall be governed by the legal principle of the judgment in question rather than the existing legal principle.3. Significance and Implications In many disputes, the Supreme Court abandoned the concept of “fixedness” in ordinary wages, which had been the most important indicator in determining whether ordinary wages should be recognized, and reestablished the concept of ordinary wages centered on the intrinsic nature of ordinary wages: the consideration of prescribed work as compensation. The Supreme Court appears to have emphasized the nature of ordinary wages as a “tool concept,” aiming to increase the possibility of prior calculation—that is, predictability.

According to the new legal principles of ordinary wages, it will become difficult to exclude certain allowances, such as regular bonuses, from ordinary wages by adding certain conditions, such as employment requirements. Considering that, in practice, many workplaces pay a substantial portion of wages in the form of regular bonuses with employment conditions attached, the current situation has increased the likelihood that regular bonuses will be recognized as ordinary wages regardless of whether employment conditions are attached. Therefore, it appears that, after analyzing the significance and effect of the ruling, prompt regulatory revisions and other measures will be required. Even after the landmark ruling, if allowances with the condition of continued employment are excluded from ordinary wages (including regular bonuses), one may also bear criminal liability for withholding wages.

Meanwhile, the full bench’s ruling did not deny the validity of all conditions attached to wages (the ruling in question appears to have recognized the validity of the conditions for employment and the condition for the number of working days), and it held that “the conditions attached to wages may be considered one of the factors that negate the appropriateness, regularity, and uniformity of prescribed work in the process of substantially determining the objective nature of the wages” (for example, in the case of the no-accident allowance under the no-accident condition, the appropriateness of ordinary wages was denied). However, a new phase in the debate over ordinary wages is expected to open, including determining whether any condition can be regarded as a factor denying the consideration of prescribed work as compensation, and further denying its status as ordinary wages, and it is predicted that many legal disputes will arise.It is also interpreted that the Supreme Court, recognizing that the parties affected by the change in precedent and the scale of the interest involved are extremely broad and that many legal disputes are likely to arise, decided in principle to apply the new legal doctrine starting from the ordinary wage calculation after the date of the judgment in question to prevent such legal confusion.

However, it is also expected that many discussions will be triggered regarding the scope and criteria for classification of the “parallel cases” in which the legal principles changed by this recent full bench ruling are applied retroactively (for example, if the claim’s purpose has been expanded in a parallel case currently under litigation regarding whether it constitutes ordinary wages, the expanded claim’s purpose portion will also be subject to retroactive effect, etc.). It is therefore necessary to pay close attention to future court rulings on this matter.Attorney Sangwook Cho (swcho@yulchon.com ), Attorney Myungchul Lee (mclee@yulchon.com ), Attorney Jinsu Choi (jschoi@yulchon.com ), Attorney Kwangsun Lee (kslee@yulchon.com ), Attorney Jahyung Koo (jhku@yulchon.com )

Source: Law Times. See details