In a case handled by LK Partners, the court granted a preliminary injunction ordering removal and prohibiting interference, recognizing that the landlord’s construction works infringed upon the commercial tenant’s right of possession and business operations. Case Overview The case involved a commercial tenant in a retail building located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, who sought a preliminary injunction for removal and prohibition of interference after the landlord carried out construction without the tenant’s consent. The landlord installed scaffolding around the entire exterior of the building and placed construction materials at entrances, substantially obstructing access to the shop and interfering with the tenant’s business operations. Key Issues Whether the tenant’s right of possession and business operations were unlawfully interfered with Whether the landlord’s construction constituted routine maintenance or an unlawful act intended to pressure the tenant to vacate Whether the requirements for granting a preliminary injunction—namely, the existence of a right to be preserved and the necessity of preservation—were satisfied Court’s Decision The Seoul Central District Court granted the tenant’s application, issuing a preliminary injunction ordering removal of the obstructions and prohibiting further interference. When the landlord subsequently filed an objection, the court upheld its original decision, reaffirming the tenant’s rights and the necessity of preservation. The court held that even if the landlord later obtained approval for major repairs, the construction did not qualify as a permissible preservation act and could not justify infringement of the tenant’s possession. LK Partners’ Expertise To promptly and effectively protect the tenant’s rights, LK Partners provided comprehensive legal support, including: Fact-finding and evidence collection: Organizing proof of scaffolding installation, material placement, and interference with business operations Legal analysis and strategy: Demonstrating that the conduct went beyond mere maintenance and amounted to unlawful pressure to force eviction, thereby establishing the right to be preserved and the need for urgent relief Injunction application and advocacy: Seeking specific and effective remedies, including immediate removal, prohibition of possession interference, and restrictions on construction during business hours Response to objections: Defending the injunction against the landlord’s challenges and securing affirmation of the original ruling Through these efforts, LK Partners achieved tangible protection of the tenant’s possession and business operations. Significance of the Case This decision affirms that where a landlord pressures a tenant through scaffolding installation and prolonged business disruption, courts will prioritize protection of the tenant’s right of possession. It is particularly significant in that the court curtailed attempts to justify de facto eviction pressure under the guise of routine maintenance. For legal assistance with commercial lease disputes or infringements of possession, please contact LK Partners. We provide tailored solutions to safeguard tenants’ rights.

In a medical malpractice damages lawsuit handled by LK Partners, the court ruled that the hospital bore no liability. This case involved a medical dispute concerning sensory disturbance following a tooth extraction and provides meaningful guidance on how courts assess medical negligence. Case Overview After undergoing a tooth extraction, the patient experienced persistent sensory disturbance in the mandibular (lower jaw) area. The patient filed a damages claim against the hospital, alleging that residual impairment resulted from inadequate explanation prior to surgery and negligent postoperative management. Hospital’s Arguments The hospital contended that: Sufficient explanations were provided to the patient prior to the procedure; There was no specific negligence in the surgical process; and Mandibular sensory disturbance is a complication that may commonly occur after tooth extraction. Court’s Ruling The court accepted the hospital’s arguments, finding that: The sensory disturbance fell within the range of complications that may occur after surgery; The hospital fulfilled its duty to explain potential risks to the patient; and No negligence or improper management was identified during the surgical process. Accordingly, the court did not recognize the hospital’s liability and dismissed the patient’s claims. Significance of the Decision This ruling clarifies that: The occurrence of postoperative aftereffects does not automatically constitute medical negligence; Complications may arise during surgical procedures, and where medical professionals have provided adequate prior explanations and fulfilled their duty of care, liability is limited; and In medical disputes, the most critical issues are whether the physician’s duty to explain and duty of care were properly discharged. LK Partners’ Commentary Medical malpractice disputes are complex matters requiring both specialized medical understanding and careful legal analysis. A proper response requires thorough examination of: whether the outcome constitutes a postoperative complication, whether the damage resulted from medical negligence, and whether the patient was provided with sufficient explanation in advance. Medical Malpractice and Medical Dispute Consultation If you are facing difficulties related to a medical malpractice damages claim or a medical dispute, we recommend consulting with the medical litigation specialists at LK Partners. Drawing on extensive experience, we provide optimal, case-specific legal solutions.

In a damages lawsuit related to involuntary hospitalization for mental illness handled by LK Partners, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, accepting the hospital’s position that the requirements for protective admission were satisfied and that no negligence occurred. Case Overview A patient suffering from a mental illness was placed under involuntary (protective) hospitalization, after which a damages lawsuit was filed. The plaintiff alleged that the hospital misjudged the patient’s condition and unnecessarily imposed compulsory admission, seeking compensation for emotional distress and related losses. Plaintiff’s Arguments The patient’s symptoms were not severe enough to warrant involuntary hospitalization. The hospital failed to comply with the procedures prescribed under the Mental Health Welfare Act and wrongfully decided on admission. As a result, the patient suffered mental and financial harm, for which the hospital should be held liable. Hospital’s Arguments The patient posed a risk of self-harm or harm to others, thereby satisfying the statutory requirements for protective admission. Based on the physician’s judgment at the time and the medical records, there were no procedural deficiencies. The admission was an unavoidable measure to protect the patient’s health and safety, and no negligence existed. Court’s Decision The court accepted the hospital’s arguments and held that: The patient’s condition met the requirements for protective admission (risk of self-harm or harm to others). The hospitalization was carried out based on the medical professionals’ expertise and judgment and could not be deemed unlawful or negligent. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed. Significance of the Ruling This case clarifies the standards applied to protective hospitalization of patients with mental illness and delineates the scope of hospital liability. Protective admission may be necessary to ensure the safety of the patient and others. Where medical professionals make a reasonable judgment based on the circumstances at the time and contemporaneous medical records, it is difficult to impose damages liability after the fact. Nonetheless, medical institutions should maintain thorough and accurate medical records throughout the process to prepare for potential disputes. LK Partners’ Commentary Cases involving mental illness are particularly sensitive and complex, as they implicate both patient safety and human rights. The key issues are: whether the requirements for involuntary hospitalization are satisfied, whether procedural legitimacy is secured, and whether medical records are sufficiently complete and accurate. Careful review of these factors is essential. Medical Malpractice and Medical Dispute Consultation If you are experiencing difficulties related to a medical malpractice damages claim or a medical dispute, we recommend consulting with the medical litigation specialists at LK Partners. With extensive experience and professional expertise, we provide tailored, case-specific legal solutions.  

In a medical malpractice damages lawsuit handled by LK Partners, the court acknowledged a diagnostic error by the defendant hospital but did not recognize a causal relationship between that error and the patient’s death. As a result, the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed. This case highlights the critical importance of proving not only negligence but also causation in medical disputes. Case Overview The deceased patient visited a hospital complaining of headaches and vomiting and underwent a CT scan. However, no signs of a ruptured cerebral aneurysm were identified at that time. The patient was later transferred to another hospital and underwent brain surgery, but never regained consciousness and subsequently passed away. Plaintiff’s (Patient’s Family’s) Arguments • The defendant hospital’s medical staff clearly committed a diagnostic error by failing to detect signs of a ruptured cerebral aneurysm on the CT images. • Had the risk of rebleeding been properly assessed and timely measures taken, the patient would not have died. • Therefore, the plaintiff argued that there was a causal relationship between the hospital’s negligence and the patient’s death, and that damages should be awarded. Defendant’s (Hospital’s) Arguments • Based on the initial CT images alone, it was difficult to clearly identify subarachnoid hemorrhage. • Even when the patient revisited the hospital after being discharged, there were no obvious signs of cerebral hemorrhage. • The patient’s death was caused by a subsequent rebleeding event, which had no direct causal connection to the alleged diagnostic error at the initial visit. Court’s Ruling The court held as follows: • A diagnostic error by the defendant hospital is acknowledged. • However, the patient’s death resulted from a subsequent rebleeding, and it is difficult to recognize a direct causal relationship between the initial diagnostic error and the death. • Accordingly, a diagnostic error alone is insufficient to impose liability for the patient’s death. As a result, the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed. Significance of the Decision This case clearly demonstrates that negligence and causation must be proven separately. Even where medical negligence is established, liability for damages is limited unless that negligence can be directly linked to the patient’s harm, such as death or residual disability. The ruling underscores that, in medical malpractice litigation, establishing causation is often the most critical factor for a plaintiff to prevail. LK Partners’ Commentary Medical malpractice damages claims are not determined solely by the existence of negligence. A proper legal assessment requires a thorough review of whether there was negligence in the medical act, whether that negligence is directly connected to the patient’s death or injury, and whether such causation can be legally proven. Careful analysis of these complex issues is essential for an effective legal response. Medical Malpractice and Medical Dispute Consultation If you are experiencing difficulties related to a medical malpractice damages claim or a medical dispute, we recommend consulting with the medical litigation specialists at LK Partners. Drawing on extensive experience and professional expertise, we provide tailored legal solutions optimized for each individual case.