SOUTH KOREA Law and Practice Contributed by: Sihoon Yang, Young Min Kim, Jung Mo Hong and Douglas Hwang, Yoon & Yang LLC
8.3 Digitalisation Increased Use of Virtual Hearings Through Amendment of the Civil Procedures Act and Criminal Procedures Act The amendments to the Civil Procedures Act and the Criminal Procedures Act, which came into effect on 18 November 2021, provided grounds for expansion of the use of virtual hearings. Civil litigations For civil litigations, virtual hearings may be held: • if the presiding judge deems it appropriate; or • at the request of, or consent by, the parties if the court deems it difficult for a party to appear before the court in person owing to a traffic inconvenience or any other reason. Virtual hearings may be held not only for the pleading hearing, but also for pre - paratory pleading and examination hearings. Criminal litigations For criminal litigations, the appearance of the party is an absolute requirement; hence, trials may not be held virtually. However, preparatory hearing and witness examinations may be conducted virtually if the court deems this reasonable after hearing the opinions of the prosecutor and the defence counsel. Benefits of virtual hearings The procedures for conducting virtual hearings do not substantially differ from those for conducting the hearing in person, other than the fact that the parties attend virtual hearings through the use of audiovisual devices connected to the internet. One of the main benefits of virtual hearings is that the parties or their representatives are relieved of travel burdens or dif - ficulties. Problems with virtual hearings Some of the concerns regarding virtual hearings include not being able to fully present one’s case if there are internet connection issues that cause dif - ficulties in presenting arguments or sharing exhibits. Moreover, there is a risk of a third party intervening in the hearing by providing advice or intimidating the party out of view of the camera.
(c) education and training; (d) job placement, transfer or promotion; and (e) retirement and dismissal. Burden of Proof Ordinarily, the party raising a legal claim bears the burden of proof in substantiating their claim. Howev - er, South Korean labour laws determine whether laws have been violated based on substantive – as opposed to formalistic – standards when the employment rela - tionship between an employer and an employee is at issue. In particular, Article 30 of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act expressly provides that the burden of proof is shifted to employers when resolving disputes Article 9 (1) of the Fixed-Term Workers Act and Article 21 (2) of the Temporary Agency Workers Act enable fixed-term employees, part-time employees and dis - patched employees who have been discriminated against to file a petition to the Local Commission for a corrective order against the discrimination such employees were subject to. Furthermore, as of 19 May 2022, employees have been enabled to seek relief from the Labor Relations Commission for discrimina - tion prohibited under the Equal Employment Oppor - tunity Act. Although the Labor Standards Act and the Age Discrimination Act do not expressly provide the opportunity to seek relief from the Local Commission or the National Commission, remedies for violations of these acts (including unlawful discrimination) can be obtained through filing: • petitions with the Ministry of Employment and Labor; • civil lawsuits with the court; or • criminal complaints with the investigative authori - ties. arising out of this act. Relief and Damages Separate from the foregoing, an employee may also seek compensation for any pecuniary damages and/ or emotional distress they have suffered due to the employer’s discrimination without reasonable cause.
584 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook