The Law Firm Cheongchul (Attorney in Charge: Kim Kwang-sik) has led to a ruling that dismisses the final appeal. Thus, it has safely protected the client's assets while also achieving the effect of lifting the unjust seizure against the client.

1. Background of the Case

The Special Act on the Seizure and Recovery of Corrupt Assets (hereinafter referred to as the Corrupt Asset Seizure Act) stipulates that the pre-seizure procedure before indictment is a measure to preserve and recover the victim's property in order to allow for subsequent confiscation or recovery of criminal proceeds.

At the time of the incident, the client was under investigation for various complex charges, including embezzlement, and there were aspects that the client was not fully aware of. Accordingly, the client actively explained the verifiable aspects with the assistance of the Law Firm Cheongchul and completed the actual repayment regarding the parts where the facts were clear.

In this situation, there was a pre-seizure application for the client's personal assets from the investigative agency.

2. Legal Issues (Key Grounds and Issues of Cheongchul)

The Law Firm Cheongchul pointed out that the pre-seizure procedure before indictment according to the Corrupt Asset Seizure Act is ultimately a system aimed at the recovery of the victim's damages, and explained that the reasons presented by the investigative agency did not meet the criteria of 'cases where recovery of damages is recognized as severely difficult'.

In particular, regarding the logic that the prosecutor is not filing claims for damages against the client, who is inferred to be the actual controller of a victim corporation that appears to be dominated by one individual, and that it is also difficult to expect such claims, they presented a counter-argument that "Aside from legal logic such as the theory of corporate personality distinction, realistically, it is nearly impossible to assume a one-person company making a claim against its actual controller, and in such cases, the possibility of recovery means that the operator must have the intent or ability to return the damages."

Furthermore, the prosecutor also argued for the necessity of pre-seizure citing reasons such as 'financial soundness regarding corporate accounting'; however, they pointed out that such legal interests do not correspond to the personal legal interests of the victim corporation and thus cannot be grounds for pre-seizure under the Corrupt Asset Seizure Act.

3. Significance (The Meaning of This Case)

The court fully accepted the arguments of the Law Firm Cheongchul and concluded that the prosecutor failed to prove the requirement of 'cases where recovery of damages is recognized as severely difficult', thereby dismissing all applications.

In practice, given that the legal theory related to pre-seizure under the Corrupt Asset Seizure Act has not been sufficiently established, focusing on the fact that a 'one-person company' cannot file for damages against its actual controller always raises the possibility of there being a need for pre-seizure, and it seems that the prosecutor also applied this logic when applying for pre-seizure in this case.

However, the Law Firm Cheongchul firmly established that the formula "one-person company = approval of pre-seizure" should not be simply applied, suggesting that this legal principle may be applied in various ways in the practice of pre-seizure proceedings in the future.