1. The Client’s Crisis

The client, who was just starting out in the workforce, had a dream of running a food truck business. One day, the other party, whom they met at a remodeling company, proposed, “I own multiple food trucks, so if you lend me the cost of securing a booth at an event venue, I’ll guarantee you a fixed monthly salary of KRW 4 million.” Believing this, the client transferred a total of about KRW 102 million over several months to the other party’s company and to the individual.

However, the promised salary was never paid even once. When the client demanded repayment of the loaned money, the other party abruptly changed course, claiming, “Since we are in a partnership, there is nothing to settle.” That was not the end of it. At the event venue, the other party indiscriminately assaulted the client, causing injuries including a concussion and facial contusions that required three weeks of treatment, and even showed calculated behavior by forcing the client to record the statement “We are in a partnership” on the other person’s mobile phone. The client received hospital treatment and, even after discharge, had to suffer trauma severe enough to require psychiatric care.

2. Key Issues

The difficult issues that had to be resolved in this case fell mainly into two categories. First, it was true that the client had transferred about KRW 100 million, but no separate promissory note had been drafted. The other party was exploiting this point and strongly insisting that it was a “sharing of partnership expenses,” so it was uncertain whether the claim for return of the loaned money would be accepted. Second, even if proving the loan was difficult, the client’s assault-related damages had to be pursued with legal responsibility attached. The key issue was how to connect the criminal proceedings and the civil lawsuit in order to secure meaningful compensation.

3. Strategy

Lead Attorney Noh Jong-eon冷철하게 analyzed the course of the case and made a strategic shift that compensated for the limitations of the loan-repayment lawsuit.

First, while maintaining the lawsuit for return of the loaned money, he directly refuted the other party’s “partnership” claim. He pointed out that no partnership agreement existed and that the very fact the other party assaulted the client during the criminal proceedings was evidence not of an equal partnership, but of a one-sided superior-subordinate relationship.

Second, in a situation where recognition of the loan was uncertain, he made a judgment that pierced to the essence of the case. He realized that this was not a mere failure to perform a debt, but an unlawful act involving assault and injury, and during the litigation he filed a motion to amend the claims and the cause of action, abruptly adding a claim for emotional distress damages arising from the other party’s assault. He also pursued criminal complaints in parallel, secured evidence that the other party had received a summary order imposing a fine of KRW 3 million for assault and injury, and used that as key evidence for the civil claim for emotional distress damages.

Third, by systematically submitting the medical certificate of injury, the summary order, hospitalization records, and psychiatric treatment records, he conveyed to the court the seriousness of the client’s physical and mental harm.

4. Outcome and Recovery

The court dismissed the loan-repayment claim because there was no clear promissory note, but it clearly recognized the other party’s tort liability. It held that the other party assaulted the client, causing a concussion and other injuries, and that this resulted in severe mental suffering, and ordered payment of KRW 7 million in emotional distress damages plus delay damages.

In a case that could have resulted in a complete loss with not a single won recovered due to lack of evidence, the focus of the lawsuit was shifted and legal responsibility for the other party’s unlawful act was firmly established. Not only did it secure monetary compensation, but by clearly showing that the other party’s conduct was legally “unlawful,” it was a case that restored the reputation of the client, who had been unfairly assaulted.

If you are wondering how to respond in a similar situation, the outcome may vary depending on the specific facts of the case, so we recommend consulting a professional.

Attorney in charge: Lead Attorney Noh Jong-eon

For confidentiality and protection of privacy, some identifying details in this case have been removed to the extent that it does not affect the essence of the matter.