[New Square 2PM] New Jin's Hani is the first K-pop idol to attend a state audit.

■ Host: Lee Se-na Anchor, Jung Chae-woon Anchor
■ Starring: Attorney Kim Sung-hoon

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information. Please specify [YTN New Square 2PM] when quoting.

[Anchor]
Let's look at the incidents and accidents that are at the center of a lot of interest and controversy. Case 2, today with lawyer Kim Sung-hoon. Welcome.

[Kim Sung Hoon]
Hello,

[Anchor]
I heard that Hani, a member of the group Newzins, arrived at the National Assembly a little while ago. K-pop. I heard it's the first time an incumbent K-pop idol has attended an audit.

[Kim Sung Hoon]
That's right. It's not a stage. Nevertheless, there is a lot of public interest in this case, and in some ways, some people may wonder how big the story of passing by and asking them to ignore it is, and why it has become such a public concern simply because of its popularity. In fact, it's not so much a statement or content itself, but rather a combination of the so-called entertainment industry as a whole, and the structure between the companies that are now, and the basic status and various personalities of artists. In other words, it's not just a relationship between individuals, but it's a content that contains all the conflicts in the Hive and Audor incidents. In that sense, it can be seen as an issue that arouses a lot of interest.

[Anchor]
The issue of attending the parliamentary audit is whether the idol bullying claimed by Hani can be viewed as a workplace harassment problem, so how is workplace harassment legally specified?

[Kim Sung Hoon]
Workplace harassment is beyond the usual scope of work, and bullying by an employer or worker using their superior position is called workplace harassment. The first of the conceptual signs of workplace bullying is based on the premise that an employer or worker in the workplace harasses another worker. You have to take advantage of your superior position. The superior position is sometimes a hierarchical position, sometimes a relational advantage, and finally, beyond the proper scope of work, causing physical and mental pain or deteriorating the working environment.

When you look at each of these conceptual signs, there are some legal issues in this case. First of all, as in the expression workplace bullying, the expression workplace is basically intended to block bullying within the organization of the same company. There are many misunderstandings about workplace harassment that I know that there is a law that punishes A if you report A for workplace harassment. But that's not the case.

In principle, workplace harassment does not apply to relationships with people from other companies other than the same workplace because the employer of the company who received the report is obligated to take appropriate measures. In that regard, I understand that the manager who made this remark in disregard of the current relationship is the manager of the Hive affiliate, but not the door manager.

Then, in principle, although the majority shareholders are the same, affiliated company, it may be difficult to see them as so-called workplaces because they are not one company. Second, the second issue is whether the remarks now take advantage of so-called relational and positional advantages. Third, mental and physical harassment beyond the appropriate range or whether it has worsened the working environment will also be a legal issue. Finally, in principle, the employee nature of celebrities can also be an issue because employers or workers bully other workers in the workplace.

[Anchor]
There seem to be various issues, but first of all, you said that this part should be pointed out, and as you said, can idol members be regarded as office workers in the usual sense in order for workplace harassment to be established? I heard you have to look at the personality of a celebrity.

[Kim Sung Hoon]
That's right. Based on the so-called exclusive contract, the relationship between the artist and the management company is basically a party to the exclusive contract, but workerhood presupposes a superior employment relationship. So it's a little different. The core of worker character is to direct and supervise through superior employment relationships, that is, to decide when to go to work and when to leave work, to follow it, to provide work, and to direct and supervise things about the provision of work.

In this regard, our court judges that exclusive contracts are contractually performed on behalf of management, not like employers. However, related ministries have judged in the past, but in this regard, even in the case of idols, this goes beyond simple equal contracts, and all parts of the schedule are called highly recommended. If there are parts that are controlled and supervised superiorly, there are opinions that worker characteristics should be recognized.

[Anchor]
I see. Also, CEO Kim Joo-young will attend today's parliamentary inspection of the Economic, Social and Labor Committee as a witness. There are also observations that a battle of truth between the two will take place in public, but what will be the issue of the battle between the two?

[Kim Sung Hoon]
First of all, we're arguing with each other about the facts. The so-called Hive affiliate's manager has never told Hani about it, arguing like this. And while claiming that he did not deliberately delete the evidence regarding the relevant evidence, Hani's case clearly heard about it and there may be related videos, and there will be disputes over the facts about these two facts because he claims that the video was deliberately deleted arbitrarily.

In fact, this is a problem that requires questions about angles in a slightly different way. As mentioned earlier, whether or not it falls under workplace harassment under the Labor Standards Act is actually a matter that deals with very narrow areas in the overall problem, so I don't think this is the only issue to be dealt with. In essence, in relation to the Hive and Adore incidents, Hive's position and former CEO of Adore's Min Hee-jin's position are different, but in a fundamental conflict situation, the concept of Newzins and copies of the contents of Newzins were intended to be implemented through other groups of Hive affiliates other than Adore, and this is what former CEO Min Hee-jin insisted on now.

In conclusion, in the process of such things, it is Min Hee-jin's most important argument that Hive systematically interfered with this part in the process of growing and succeeding, or that he hurt the fandom and the members of New Jin's members so far by making copies of it through other labels. As one such aspect, there was a story that the manager of another affiliate told him to ignore it.

So what we need to deal with here is that workplace harassment is a very small problem, and then, no matter how large a company manages as a major shareholder, artists are basically not just products but personal beings, what can be done to invade related IPs or fandom through other affiliates, and whether they actually did it. And if there are such parts, is it allowed within the scope of freedom of business activities, or is it supposed to be blocked? In the process, artists like Newzins can see the overall discussion of what authority and in what areas the rights should be respected in the projects they have developed as more important stories.

[Anchor]
So, it sounds like something from today's parliamentary inspection could affect the legal battle between Hive and former CEO Min Hee-jin. If the agency ends up deliberately excluding the members of Newzins, can it be legally punished? What's going to happen?

[Kim Sung Hoon]
First of all, such objective facts will not be confirmed in today's parliamentary inspection. In the future, if there is a legal dispute, it is expected that a judgment will be made based on proof in the process. However, based on these discussions and contents, a number of subsequent legal issues or disputes can arise. The workplace harassment itself does not originally have a criminal punishment clause. If anything, if an employer takes inappropriate, so-called retaliatory measures for reporting workplace harassment after receiving a report of workplace harassment, there are criminal penalties, but there are no penalties for companies or workers who have been bullied in the workplace.

In that regard, disputes over facts are often filed criminally in Korea, and such cases can be filed or lawsuits for damages caused by illegal activities can be filed. More structurally, beyond Hani's event now, as I said earlier, there are different stories about the starting point of the dispute over management rights. On Hive's side, former CEO Min Hee-jin was only a so-called CEO with a minority stake, but he tried to take over management rights by colluding with external forces, which is Hive's claim. If Hive claims that

even arbitrarily depreciated Adore and actually lost the company's value and committed a job breach, former CEO Min Hee-jin argues that the core value of Adore is Newzins, but Hive systematically created a copycat that completely imitates the core values and basic styles of Newzins through other companies, and he killed the so-called Newzins and eventually beat himself to protest it.

In fact, these are the two most important points of the conflict between CEO Min Hee-jin and Hive. In today's parliamentary inspection, rather than an issue of workplace harassment, these overall aspects actually existed, and whether they exist or not, but if they exist, it will have to be discussed how much freedom they are in business activities or whether it is a very illegal thing that can go beyond it, or a factor that can hinder the development of the relevant enterprise industry. If you don't have that, it could be a little too small a topic.

[Anchor]
We'll see how the parliamentary inspection and legal battles surrounding New Jeans will be conducted. Let's move on to the next topic. Let's watch the video we prepared before that. Comedian Lee Jin-ho confessed to illegal gambling through a post on social media.
Please point out specifically what happened.

[Kim Sung Hoon]
In the process of illegal gambling, we had a lot of debt, and in the process of making debt and paying it back, many victims were mass-produced, and among the victims, there were quite a few celebrities, including famous celebrities. In the end, he talked about his responsibility and apologized, but on the other hand, there is a situation in which the illegal gambling was carried out on such a large scale and the entertainers who were damaged by lending money to illegal gambling have the aftermath of various incidents.

[Anchor]
In the process of paying off gambling debts, the names of various celebrities, including BTS member Jimin and comedian Lee Soo-geun, were mentioned, and these complaints were filed that a gift tax should be imposed on the celebrities who lent money like this? What's this about?

[Kim Sung-hoon]
In the so-called gift, the transfer of the value of a property free of charge is called a gift, but in fact, it is not an accurate complaint. Because giving is literally giving. However, lending money now is called a credit, so it is called consumption substitution. In short, what do I do if I lend it to you? You have to pay it back. If so, it is completely different from a gift that completely transfers property for free. If you lend money and earn interest income, and you don't report income to the National Tax Service, you should tax income tax on that part. This can be said, but there is no reason to tax gift tax because it is a gift that you did not receive after lending money.

[Anchor]
Then, should I say that it is unlikely to be recognized as a gift in reality?

[Kim Sung Hoon]
If you don't repay the debt and finally bind the money, it can't be called a gift.

[Anchor]
In addition, one of the facts revealed this time was that Lee Jin-ho was accused of fraud for not paying back the money he borrowed from an acquaintance, so how is the investigation going on in this part?

[Kim Sung Hoon]
Now, it seems that the investigation will proceed with the details related to illegal gambling. The purpose of saying that it's a fraud just because you couldn't pay back the money here is not that you can't pay off your debt because you default on your debt, but you're willing and able to repay it from the time you borrowed it. I didn't intend to reimburse it and I'm not capable of doing that, but if I borrow money, it's a fraud. It can be said that it was sued on such charges because it was called borrowing fraud.

[Anchor]
The police launched an investigation before Lee Jin-ho was booked, so how much can we expect the punishment in the future?

[Kim Sung Hoon]
The scale of gambling is large, and there is a crime of habitual gambling, and there is just a crime of gambling. If you have habitual behavior, the level of punishment is very high because it is much more illegal. Depending on the amount of damage, you may be sentenced to prison, and if it is clear that you borrowed money without willingness or ability to repay, in this case, if the amount of damage exceeds 500 million won, including fraud, it is highly likely to be sentenced to prison under the Special Police Act.

[Anchor]
I see. Before moving on to the last topic, let's watch another related video. It is a suspicion of former President Roh Tae-woo's slush fund that was revealed during the divorce lawsuit between SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won and Art Center Director Noh So-young. What's the matter?

[Kim Sung Hoon]
In conclusion, it is the so-called contribution to the wealth formation process at the time. In the process of arguing over each contribution, there was ultimately a slush fund from the late former President Roh Tae-woo, director Roh So-young's father, and the slush fund played a significant role, contributing to the increase of SK's wealth. It was stated that it contributed to the increase of SK's assets. And based on the data related to the various memos that came out at the time, there is a part where the contribution of the property was recognized based on the fact that this part was quite reliable.

If so, this may be about the contribution of the two parties to the formation of wealth as a divorce lawsuit, but beyond that, did former President Roh Tae-woo's slush fund exist? In particular, because this slush fund can be the basis for showing that there was a considerable amount of slush funds that existed under a borrowed name in various ways in the name of a third party other than the so-called name, there were accusations that the slush funds should be properly confirmed and the hidden property should be recovered if this is criminal proceeds.

[Anchor]
The Minister of Justice said that the prosecution will investigate if necessary. What is the background of the estimated hidden slush fund at around 120 billion won?

[Kim Sung Hoon]
Basically, we're saying that the amount of slush funds here is 30 billion, but not only the scale of concealment, but there may also be various parts that increase after concealment. And here, actually, the slush fund is not just in the account details under that name, but when you look at the forms entrusted by the third and fourth people, you can say that we talked about it, estimating it as 120 billion.

[Anchor]
The appellate court of the second trial of the divorce suit judged that the 30 billion won, estimated to be former President Roh Tae-woo's slush fund, flowed toward former president Choi Sun-dae and became the seed money of the group. But recently, the opposite argument came out?

[Kim Sung Hoon]
On the contrary, the late former chairman Choi gave 30 billion won as an activity fund after leaving office, not 30 billion won entrusted by former President Roh Tae-woo. There were also testimonies saying that they went in the opposite direction. Basically, this part is probably related to the Supreme Court, and it is expected to be an issue in the appeal. In principle, it is the Supreme Court that disputes legal principles, not facts, but basically, in the process of arguing for legal misunderstandings about the process of property formation, there is a tendency to ultimately see whether there is a serious violation of the recognition of facts, in important cases. It is expected to be a key issue in this area as well.

[Anchor]
But the statute of limitations is important in the process of revealing the true nature of the slush fund suspicion?

[Kim Sung Hoon]
That's right. Basically, if criminal punishment is made in order to take various laws on concealing criminal proceeds or such legal measures, all criminal penalties have a statute of limitations, so it may be difficult to punish criminal proceeds that have passed decades in the process. In that regard, the important issue will be when the statute of limitations will be viewed, when the statute of limitations will be viewed, and when the statute of limitations will be viewed as completed.

[Anchor]
I see. So far, I've been talking about major incidents with lawyer Kim Sung-hoon. Thank you for talking today.