Background Offshore wind power generation projects, which are gaining attention as a means of responding to the climate crisis and realizing carbon neutrality in industry, are facing challenges due to overly complex and protracted domestic licensing procedures, which are slowing down the operation of offshore wind power. To solve these issues, bills have recently been introduced in the National Assembly to promote offshore wind power. Scope of work Compile and summarize the current zoning regulations and licensing procedures for offshore wind power development, reviewing the precedence of each process and the statutory timeframe for each license. Analyze the effectiveness of relevant bills pending in the National Assembly in shortening the permit period and review related issues regarding the existing business operators Suggestions on how to apply legislative techniques to shorten offshore wind permit periods and possible measures to minimize disruption in the field when relevant special laws are enacted. Results and Effects ELPS selected essential licenses to develop offshore wind power and reviewed the precedence and statutory timeframes of each licensing process to provide a basis for realistic estimates of the actual time required. Also, ELPS analyzed the details of zoning regulations for each zoning item to be considered when developing offshore wind power by reviewing relevant underlying laws In addition, ELPS analyzed legislative and policy techniques introduced by pending legislation in the National Assembly and their effectiveness in reducing permitting timeframes, and suggested ways to further reduce timeframes. ELPS also presented the opinion on the legal status and scope of legitimate treatment of existing business operators, one of the key issues of pending legislation.

Background Company A, which was planning to open a Korean restaurant in a luxury resort overseas, discussed a joint venture with Company B, a Korean restaurant franchisor, to carry out a Korean restaurant business. The joint venture was terminated during the interior construction of the Korean restaurant due to disagreements over the distribution of equity and governance of the Korean restaurant. As B, the contractee of the interior construction contract, did not pay the contractor, A paid the contractor instead of B and completed the interior construction. When a Korean restaurant created by Company A becomes successful overseas, Company B files criminal charges against Company A for fraud and trade secret infringement, and also files a civil lawsuit against Company A for return of investment and unjust enrichment. As the CEO of Company A lives abroad, he is unable to receive the lawsuit documents such as the civil lawsuit complaint, and the case is served by public notice, and the judgment in favor of Company A is confirmed. Company B initiates enforcement proceedings against Company A's property using the confirmed civil judgment as a source of enforcement. Scope of Practice Police and prosecution investigations, including legal review of fraud and trade secret infringement, submission of defense opinions, and participation in investigations. Responded to enforcement proceedings, including applying for an injunction against Company A's property.  Responded to civil litigation, including filing subsequent supplement of appeal against a civil judgment that was finalized by public notice and proving the non-existence of a joint venture agreement and unjust enrichment of Company A. Results and Effects ELPS proved that there was no intent to defraud, no fraudulent behavior, and no damage to B by proving that the joint venture between A and B was terminated and that A paid for the expenses owed by B. ELPS also proved that the information provided by B for the Korean restaurant business was not important information subject to trade secret infringement and obtained a dismissal of charges from the prosecution. In addition, ELPS obtained a court-ordered injunction to preserve Company A's real estate, which was about to be auctioned. Despite the difficulty in obtaining relevant documents, ELPS won the court's decision to allow the appeal, proving that no joint venture was established between Company A and Company B, and that Company A did not receive any unjust enrichment from Company B. On appeal, ELPS obtained a judgment reversing the original judgment and dismissing all of the plaintiff's claims. Company B appealed, but ELPS found that the reason for B's appeal has grounds of discontinuance of trial, and the civil case was confirmed by the Supreme Court with no further hearing. Based on the finalized judgment, ELPS lifted all foreclosures on Company A's property and received legal fees from Company B for the appeal.

Background The residents nearby had filed a claim for the compensation of damage (caused by the noise and light from a ballpark) with the local government and a baseball club.  Although the local government and the baseball club had put an effort to reduce the impact on the environment, there was still a conflict between them and the local residents due to an inevitable noise from the audience at the ballpark. From their point of view, an investigation was needed in order to clarify whether the actual pollution level measured had exceeded the acceptable limit or not, and thus to resolve the conflict.  Work Scope Communication with experts in noise and light pollutions Proposal of the acceptable level of the pollutant by investigating the incurred cases related to the noise inside and outside of the country Provision of our opinion on an appropriate adoption of the assessing methodology to evaluate whether it has been exceeded the acceptable level or not Defense of the baseball club against the claim for the compensation of damage Results and Implications Based on our professional knowledge, experience in environmental damage (by the noise and light) gained during the long period, ELPS explained the difference between the limit standard (as stipulated under the law) and the acceptable limit; and propesed the need of a rational determination of the acceptable level throughout the case studies and the convergence of experts` opinions. In line with this, we also contributed to the prevention of additional conflict with the residents; and on the smooth operation of the ballpark by obtaining a favorable judgment in court.

Background Two cases of the soil contamination (caused by an oil spillage) were reported at a gas station. However, it was found that the oil spillage was due to an expansion of soil contamination occurred in a neighboring area in the past.  Several cases of civil, criminal and administrative litigations were filed by the landowner of the gas station, landowners of the neighboring area, petroleum dealers in the neighboring area who commenced the business in the past, and the local government. It is a classic example of an environmental conflict due to soil contamination in the urban area. Even though it had been a while since the first case of soil contamination was reported, people in charge of the purification avoided taking their responsibilities, and thus the conflict could not be solved.  Work Scope Communication with experts in a soil contamination investigation, and a soil remediation  Emphasis on the need of re-assessment of the soil pollution in the entire neighboring areas; and review of the assessment results Review of laws regarding a person responsible for purification and the damage liability (as stipulated in Soil Environment Conservation Act); and review of legal issues on the numerous people involved in the pollution. Defense of our client against the litigation for the damage liability on behalf of the client Results and Implications   ELPS had conducted the re-assessment on the soil pollution around the gas station and the neighboring area. We also revealed the actual pollution sources; confirmed the oil expansion issue through the scientific, technical and legal reviews; and sought solutions to address the pollution sources and the oil expansion. As a result, we received a favorable judgment; contributed on the preservation of the victim; and clarified the responsibilities of the people involved in the solution by actively claiming and proving issues in the purification and the damage liability (as stipulated in Soil Environment Conservation Act); or civil liability for damages even in the civil litigation for victims of soil contamination.

Background Administrative agency collected the wastewater sample discharged from the client’s factory and delivered it to the testing lab. As a result, the level of certain water pollutant was found to exceed 10 times the permissible limit set under the Water Environment Conservation Act. Based on the above finding, the local government issued the administrative disposition (suspension of operation) to the client due to the violation of Water Envrionment Conservation Act    Work Scope Represented the client in the administrative litigation to cancel the administrative disposition (suspension of operation) Review appropriate measures to impeach the credibility of the water pollutant measurement result Results and Implication ELPS deeply analyzed and reviewed the official test standards for water pollution which should be complied when trying to use the environmental pollution level as a ground for administrative disposition pursuant to the Environmental Testing and Inspection Act, and submitted an application for factual inquiry to the testing lab during the lawsuit to find out the possible errors that could have occurred during the process of sample collection and testing analysis when compared to the above test standards. As a result, the testing lab acknowledged that the measurement result lacked credibility as there had been an error during the test analysis process in light of the official test standards for water pollution, which led to the favorable judgment (cancellation of the disposition) by the court. 

Background Company A, which operates a comprehensive food waste recycling business, plans to expand its business scale by increasing its recycling capacity in order to increase its operating hours.  Since any change of more than one-hundredth of the authorized recycling capacity is subject to a waste recycling business change permit, and the installation of a facility that processes more than 100 tons of food waste per day is subject to environmental impact assessment, Company A submitted an environmental impact assessment preparation report to the competent administrative agency before applying for a waste recycling business change permit.  According to the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, Company A's submission of the Environmental Impact Assessment Preparation has the meaning of an application for determination of environmental impact assessment items, but the competent administrative agency refused to review the Environmental Impact Assessment Preparation on the grounds that the capacity of the food waste treatment facility in the jurisdiction is sufficient. Meanwhile, Company B, which is also engaged in the comprehensive recycling of food waste, plans to expand its business scale by increasing its recycling capacity. Company B also submitted an EIA to the competent administrative authority to conduct an environmental impact assessment procedure prior to applying for a permit to change its waste recycling business, but the competent administrative authority refused to review the EIA on the grounds that the local ordinance restricts the expansion of food waste treatment facilities.   Work Scope Review and fine-tune the evaluation items in the EIA. Review of the disposability of the decision-making process and the optimal dispute resolution for the administrative agency's refusal to review the environmental impact assessment items based on the submission of the environmental impact assessment preparation. Representation in administrative appeals and oral arguments for effective communication Results and Implication Contrary to the existing precedent that internal consultations of administrative agencies are not disposable, ELPS clarified that the rejection of the determination of environmental impact assessment items under the Environmental Impact Assessment Act is disposable, and requested a mandatory performance review under the Administrative Review Act for a one-time resolution of the dispute. In addition, during the review process, it was revealed that the decision on environmental impact assessment items was a continuing act and proved that it was illegal for the administrative agency to reject it for reasons other than statutory reasons. As a result of the above arguments, we were granted a favorable decision in the enforcement appeal on behalf of Companies A and B, and Companies A and B were able to successfully proceed with the recycling capacity expansion project.

Background A company that acquired a hazardous chemical sales company imported restricted substances under product names different from the previous import permit records for restricted substances, without obtaining new import permits for the substances that had previously obtained import permits. The administrative agency considered this a violation of the Chemical Substances Control Act and proceeded with administrative sanctions and criminal charges.  Work Scope Review of the scope and targets of import permits for restricted substances Comparison of the systems for new permits, modification permits, and modification declarations for import permits Interpretation of regulations under the Chemical Substances Control Act through inquiries to the Ministry of Environment Submission of opinion letters to investigative agencies, active defense during suspect interviews Evaluation of the effectiveness and scope of the transfer of rights and obligations under the Chemical Substances Control Act Results and Implications ELPS conducted a comprehensive review of the legislative intent and practical examples of import permits for restricted substances, deriving the concept of substances that qualify as targets for import permits. As a result, arguments were made that different legal provisions should apply to new permits and modification permits as they are distinct from each other . Furthermore, it was pointed out that the effectiveness of non-compliance varies due to the  distinction between new permits, modification permits, and modification declarations. By positioning the violations as non-criminal offenses without provisions for criminal punishment, ELPS successfully received a non-indictment decision from the investigative agency, resulting in the case being concluded with minor administrative penalties.

Background The client submitted an application for installation permit of air pollutant emitting facility to the local government in order to obtain the installation permit under the Clean Air Conservation Act, neccessary for its business.  The local government refused the application since it determined that the zoning restriction was applied to such facility in light of the air pollutant emitting facility classification under the Clean Air Conservation Act.  It was necessary for the client to cancel such refusal disposition of the local government in order to start its bussiness as soon as possible.  Work Scope Legal, scientific, and technical review on the classification of air pollutant emitting facilities under the Clean Air Conservation Act. Communication (including submitting request letter and legal opinion) with relevant ministries (Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Government Legislation) Represented the client in the administrative litigation to cancel the refusal disposition Results and Implications ELPS analyzed and reviewed that the classification name of air pollutant emitting facilities under the Clean Air Conservation Act is separate from the facility name defined in other laws and that the zoning restriction under other laws cannot be applied to the facility of this case. Then, ELPS explained the above logic to persuade the relevant ministries and finally got the favorable authoritative interpretation. Moreover, ELPS represented the client in the administrative litigation to cancel the refusal disposition and based on the expertise in the interpretation of environmental laws and regulations, ELPS actively presented arguments and evidences (including the above-mentioned interpretation from the relevant ministries), which led to obtain favorable final judgment from the court, contributing to the smooth progress of the client`s business

Background A business operator received a notice of acceptability for the interim waste disposal business and the interim waste recycling business to install an incineration facility and a recycling facility. The local government revoked the notice of acceptability for the interim waste disposal business and rejected the application for extension of the notice of acceptability for the interim waste recycling business due to non-implementation of mini environmental impact assessment and significant changes in environmental conditions. Work Scope Legal review and analysis on the timing of mini scale environmental impact assessment consultations, etc. Analyzing the environmental impact of the project on air quality through scientific and statistical data Organizing strategic fact-finding applications through detailed analysis of the incineration facility and surrounding environment Representation in administrative proceedings and civil petition for grievance Results and Implications ELPS analyzed and reviewed the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, argued and proved that the timing of mini environmental impact assessment consultation cannot be considered as 'before a notice of acceptability' unlike environmental impact assessment, submitted scientific and statistical analysis of the environmental impact of the project on air quality, and obtained a fact-finding reply from the Ministry of Environment stating that the environmental impact of incineration facilities on air quality is not significant compared to other projects. In addition, we also obtained a decision from the Civil Rights Commission, which contributed to the prompt relief of the operator's rights.