The Thai government has recently strengthened its sustainability efforts through Royal Decree No. 805 (B.E. 2569). The legislation provides generous tax exemptions for both individuals and businesses that invest in solar installations and high-efficiency equipment.

The aim is to reduce energy consumption, promote the adoption of renewable energy, and support Thailand in achieving its carbon neutrality targets.

Key Benefits

The Decree introduces two main categories of tax incentives to promote the use of clean energy and energy efficiency in households and businesses as follows:

1. Incentives for Rooftop Solar Systems for Homeowners

2. Incentives for High-Efficiency Equipment for Businesses and Individuals

Important Compliance Requirements

To ensure the validity of the tax claim, the following requirements must be met:

• Digital Documentation: Eligible equipment must be purchased from VAT-registered suppliers, and a valid electronic tax invoice must be submitted as supporting documentation.

• No Double Benefits: The same expenses cannot be claimed if tax incentives have already been granted for the same project under the Board of Investment (“BOI”), the Eastern Economic Corridor (“EEC”), or other applicable special tax regimes.

• One-Time Claim: For solar installations, the tax exemption may be claimed only once, in the tax year in which the system’s grid connection is completed.

Conclusion

Royal Decree No. 805 is not only a tax relief measure, but also a strategically important measure to accelerate Thailand’s transition to clean energy. By providing financial incentives for the use of solar energy and energy-efficient investments, the government aims to encourage broad participation in achieving long-term CO2 reduction targets.

This article is for general information purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions or require tailored legal assistance, please contact the Respondek & Fan team.

—

Your point of contact in Thailand: Dr. Andreas Respondek

Respondek & Fan Ltd

United Center, 39th Floor, Suite 3904 B
323 Silom Road
Bangkok 10500, Thailand

CELL:     +66 89 896 4048
TEL:       +66 2 635 5498
FAX:       +66 2 635 5499

www.rflegal.com
respondek@rflegal.com

Effective 1 July 2026, Decree No. 161/2026/ND-CP dated 15 May 2026 increases the so-called Statutory Base Salary from VND 2,340,000 to VND 2,530,000 (approximately EUR 84).

This adjustment is also relevant for private enterprises, as the statutory base salary is used to determine the contribution ceilings for social insurance and health insurance (multiplied by a factor of 20). Consequently, the new contribution ceiling for social and health insurance will be VND 50,600,000 (approximately EUR 1,681).

In contrast, the ceiling for unemployment insurance contributions is based on the Regional Minimum Wage, which in Region 1 (e.g., urban districts of Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi) currently amounts to VND 5,310,000 (approximately EUR 176). Applying the same factor of 20 results in a contribution ceiling of VND 106,200,000 (approximately EUR 3,529).

As of 1 July 2026, the maximum social insurance contribution burden for employers (ER) and employees (EE) will be as follows:

The new Personal Income Tax Law No. 109/2025/QH15 dated 10 December 2025, which will also enter into force on 1 July 2026, introduces, among others, the following changes:

• Reduction of tax brackets from seven to five. Although the highest tax rate remains 35%, the threshold for its application has been increased from VND 80 million (approximately EUR 2,658) to VND 100 million (approximately EUR 3,322) in monthly taxable income.
• Increase of the monthly personal tax deduction to VND 15.5 million (approximately EUR 515) and the monthly dependent deduction to VND 6.2 million (approximately EUR 206) per qualifying dependent.
• Full exemption from personal income tax for remuneration paid for overtime work, night-shift allowances, and compensation paid for unused annual leave days.

Note: Under Vietnamese labour law, forfeiture clauses regarding unused annual leave are generally not permissible; unused leave must be compensated upon termination of employment.

For an employee with a taxable monthly income (after social insurance contributions and applicable deductions) of VND 200 million (approximately EUR 6,646), the revised tax brackets will reduce the monthly personal income tax burden by approximately VND 4,650,000 (approximately EUR 154).

In addition, the complete tax exemption for overtime and night-work remuneration will further reduce the effective tax burden for employees who regularly receive such payments.

—

Your point of contact in Vietnam: Christian A. Brendel

Brendel & Associates Law Co., Ltd.

D&D Tower, 10th Floor, 458 Nguyen Thi Minh Khai
Ban Co Ward,
Ho-Chi-Minh-Stadt, Vietnam

CELL:     +84 98 978 4791
TEL:       +84 28 3911 2008
FAX:       +84 28 3911 2010

www.brendel-associates.com
info@brendel-associates.com

The cross-border service of documents between Hong Kong and Mainland China has long been a procedural bottleneck in civil litigation. In April 2026, both jurisdictions introduced Hong Kong’s new mutual service arrangement with Mainland China, replacing the 1999 framework with a modernised system grounded in Article 95 of the Basic Law.  

This reform is not merely procedural. It represents a substantive shift in how judicial documents are served across jurisdictions, improving enforceability, reducing delay risk, and aligning service mechanisms with contemporary litigation practice. For litigators and businesses, understanding the new framework for cross-border service of documents is now essential. 

Past Development 

Historically, service of legal documents between Hong Kong and Mainland China relied heavily on court-to-court entrustment, typically between the High Court of the HKSAR and Mainland Higher People’s Court, which is the only channel for service of legal documents between the two jurisdictions. While legally sound, this mechanism was operationally inefficient. 

In practice, litigants frequently encountered: 

• Failed service due to incorrect or outdated addresses, allowing the defendant to easily service. 
• Difficulties locating defendants across jurisdictions. 
• Procedural delays, often extending beyond several months. 
• Alternatives measures may be required, such as seeking advice from PRC lawyers or applying to the court for substituted services, which may incur additional time and costs.  

Although the new Arrangement still preserves mutual judicial assistance, it introduces clear statutory timelines, requiring the entrusted court to complete service within two months where possible.  

This alone significantly improves predictability and litigation planning. 

Key Changes to Cross-Border Service of Documents 

Hong Kong’s new Arrangement fundamentally restructures service mechanisms, moving from a single-channel system to a multi-modal, flexible legal framework. 

For the purposes of the new framework, the “Arrangement” refers to the Arrangement on Mutual Service of Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Proceedings between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, which governs the service of court documents between the two jurisdictions. 

1. Expanded and Modernised Service Methods 

Under Article 3 of the Arrangement, service is no longer limited to judicial entrustment. Parties may now rely on a range of legally recognised service methods: 

• Postal service. 
• Electronic service, such as email, fax or mobile communication platforms, provided receipt can be ascertained. 
• Direct service through authorised persons, allowing Hong Kong parties to instruct law firms or notarisation institutions in Mainland China to effect serve on their behalf.  
• Court-to-court entrustment. 
• Service by public announcement where other methods fail. 

This reflects a clear alignment with digital litigation practices in both jurisdictions. 

2. Parallel Service for Faster Proceedings 

A key innovation is the express recognition of parallel service under Article 3 of the Arrangement.  

Where multiple service methods are used simultaneously, service is deemed effective based on the first successful method, regardless of which channel ultimately achieves service. This eliminates the need to wait for slower channels before proceeding. 

As a practical matter, this mechanism materially reduces the risk of procedural delays caused by reliance on a single service channel and enhances procedural efficiency in high-value cross-border disputes where time-sensitive.   

3. Discretion and Procedural Flexibility Under the Arrangement 

The Arrangement provides greater discretion to courts and parties, allowing service methods to be tailored to the circumstances of each case. 

Importantly: 

• Courts may allow specific modes of service, provided they do not contravene local law. 
• Parties may conduct direct service via law firms in the other jurisdiction or notarisation institutions. 
• Service may still be deemed effective even without formal proof if conduct confirms receipt (e.g., participation in proceedings) under Article 16 of the Arrangement. 

This flexibility significantly reduces procedural disputes over technical service failures. 

4. Comprehensive Coverage of Judicial Documents 

The Arrangement confirms, in Article 2, a broad definition of “judicial documents,” covering all major litigation materials, including: 

• Statements of claim, defences, appeals, and counterclaims. 
• Summons, pleadings, affidavits. 
• Judgments, rulings, mediation documents, and court orders. 
• Notices, certificates, and proofs of service. 

This ensures full procedural continuity across Hong Kong and Mainland proceedings. 

5. Structured Framework for Public Announcement 

Where all other methods fail, service by public announcement remains available. 

However, the new Arrangement has now introduced in Article 17 two key features to this mechanism:   

• Requires publication through recognised media with cross-border dissemination power. 
• Deems service effective after 60 days from publication. 

This provides clarity and reduces ambiguity compared to prior practice. 

Strategic Implications for Litigators and Businesses 

For cross-border businesses, this reform materially enhances litigation strategy. 

Key advantages include: 

• Shorter dispute resolution timelines. 
• Reduced legal costs linked to failed service attempts. 
• Improved ability to locate and serve defendants. 
• Greater certainty in enforcement across jurisdictions. 

Critically, the ability to combine service methods and rely on electronic channels creates a more defendant-resistant system, limiting tactical evasion. 

Key Risks Still to Consider 

Despite significant improvements, practical risks remain: 

• Electronic service requires verifiable receipt and often consents. 
• Public announcement still involves statutory waiting periods (60 days). 
• Procedural compliance (e.g. court permission in Hong Kong for overseas service) remains essential. 
• Accurate identification and address details continue to be critical. 

A poorly executed service strategy can still delay proceedings or affect enforceability. 

When Will the New Arrangement Take Effect 

The Arrangement was signed on 20 April 2026 and will come into force following: 

• Promulgation of judicial interpretation by the Supreme People’s Court. 
• Completion of Hong Kong’s internal implementation procedures. 

Businesses and legal practitioners should act early to align internal processes with the new framework. 

How Ravenscroft & Schmierer Can Help? 

Successfully navigating cross-border service of documents requires both procedural precision and cross-jurisdictional expertise. 

Ravenscroft & Schmierer can: 

• Advise on the most effective and compliant service strategy. 
• Coordinate cross-border service using multiple permitted methods. 
• Minimise delays and procedural challenges. 
• Strengthen enforcement outcomes in Hong Kong and Mainland China. 

If your business is involved in cross-border disputes, feel free to contact us to ensure your legal strategy is aligned with the new framework. 

FAQ: Cross-Border Service of Documents 

Disclaimer: This publication is general in nature and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should seek professional advice before taking any action in relation to the matters dealt with in this publication.

—

Your point of contact in Hong Kong: Stefan Schmierer

Ravenscroft & Schmierer

22nd Floor, Bupa Centre
141 Connaught Road West
Hong Kong, SAR

CELL:    +852 9229 6603
TEL:      +852 2388 3899
FAX:      +852 2385 2696

www.rs-lawyers.com.hk
sschmierer@rs-lawyers.com.hk

.

In the People’s Republic of China, State Council Provisions No. 834 on the Security of Industrial and Supply Chains entered into force on 7 April 2026, and Regulation No. 835 on Countering Unjustified Foreign Extraterritorial Measures entered into force on 13 April 2026.

Provisions No. 834 permit measures to be taken against foreign companies, their subsidiaries and management personnel that harm or could harm the security of China’s supply chains, for example by discontinuing supplies or withdrawing from supply chains in China. Furthermore, Chinese authorities may take “appropriate measures” against companies that unlawfully collect information concerning China’s industrial and supply chains, for example in the course of fulfilling their supply chain due diligence obligations or conducting ESG audits.

Regulation No. 835 prohibits companies, under certain conditions, from complying with and implementing foreign sanctions and other unlawful extraterritorial measures. In the event of violations, foreign companies and their subsidiaries may face inclusion on the so-called Malicious Entities List, countermeasures and civil claims for damages.

The Provisions and the Regulation affect not only the United States, but also European companies that trade with or have investments in both the United States and China and must therefore comply with the laws of both countries.

Affected European companies are forced to choose between two incompatible legal requirements: Those that comply with US sanctions risk violating Chinese law. Those that comply with Chinese requirements potentially expose themselves to consequences in the United States.

To the article:

—

Your point of contact in China: Rainer Burkardt

Burkardt & Partner

Suite 1706, Five Corporate Avenue
No. 150 Hubin Road
Shanghai 200021, P.R. China

CELL:    +86 186 1687 7153
TEL:      +86 21 6321 0088
FAX:    +86 21 6321 1100

www.bktlegal.com
info@bktlegal.com

Since 2 May 2026, the 13th Regular Foreign Investment Negative List (FINL) has been in force, promulgated by President Marcos through Executive Order No. 113 (s. 2026) on the recommendation of the Department of Economy, Planning and Development (DEPDev). It supersedes the 12th FINL issued in 2022 and remains the principal instrument defining the sectors in which foreign participation is permitted in the Philippines. For companies and investors from Germany, Austria and Switzerland, it merits a closer look.

Renewable energy – legal certainty for the energy transition

The 13th FINL expressly confirms that projects in solar, wind, hydropower and ocean or tidal energy may be up to 100% foreign-owned. This codifies, for the first time at the level of the Negative List, the opening already set in motion by DOJ Opinion No. 21 (s. 2022) and DOE Department Circular No. DC2022-11-0034 – an important signal for equipment manufacturers, EPC contractors, project developers and institutional investors from the DACH region. Geothermal energy and the utilisation of exhaustible natural resources, by contrast, remain capped at 40%.

Telecommunications and public services

In line with the amended Public Service Act (RA 11659), the 13th FINL now permits up to 100% foreign ownership in the operation of telecommunications services – subject to reciprocity from the investor’s home jurisdiction; where reciprocity is absent, a 50% ceiling applies. At the same time, the scope of what constitutes a “public utility” has narrowed: electricity distribution and water supply remain capped at 40%, while further transport and infrastructure activities are opened up more widely as “public services”.

What investors from the D-A-CH-Region should keep in mind

The liberalisation is real, but nuanced. From our perspective, three points are central: (1) the reciprocity clauses under List B require case-by-case interpretation and should be clarified with the competent regulators in advance; (2) enforcement of the anti-dummy rules is tightening noticeably; and (3) implementing rules and regulations (IRR) are still pending for certain sectors, particularly renewable energy and infrastructure. In addition, Republic Act No. 12252, with lease terms of up to 99 years, opens up new structuring options for securing project sites – especially for capital-intensive projects.

Against the backdrop of the renewed momentum in the negotiations on a free trade agreement between the EU and the Philippines – bilateral trade reached around EUR 17.6 billion in 2025 – the environment for European direct investment continues to improve.

*This post is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

—

Your point of contact in the Philippines: Lutz Kaiser

Villanueva Gabionza & Dy Law Offices

20th/F Corporate Center
139 Valero St., Salcedo Village
Makati City 1227, Philippines

CELL: +63 995 985 4957
TEL: +63 2 8813 3351
FAX: +63 2 8816 6741

www.vgdlaw.ph
kaiser@adwa-law.com

Since 1 May 2026, a fundamentally reformed takeover law has been in force in Japan. The amendment to the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (Kin’yū shōhin torihiki-hō), which was passed back in 2024 and further detailed in an implementing regulation in the summer of 2025, is now finally in force and significantly alters the rules governing the acquisition of shareholdings in listed Japanese companies.

Previously, the obligation to make a public takeover bid was triggered only when the one-third threshold was exceeded. This threshold has now been lowered to 30 per cent. The rationale behind this is that, in Japanese general meeting practice, a voting rights share of around 30 per cent is regularly sufficient to block special resolutions. The old threshold therefore no longer accurately reflected the actual control structure.

Even more significant is a second change: the acquisition of shares through regular stock market trading now also counts towards the calculation of the threshold. Previously, investors were able to gain control of a company through rapid purchases on the stock exchange without having to submit a formal offer. As a result, no regulatory review took place and minority shareholders received no control premium. This loophole has now been closed. In return, the previous special rule for particularly rapid accumulation of shareholdings has been abolished, as it has become redundant due to the uniform recording of all types of acquisition. In practice, this rule was considered complicated.

For foreign investors, this means that they will in future need to monitor smaller follow-up purchases on the stock exchange more carefully with regard to the 30 per cent threshold, as otherwise an obligation to make a takeover bid may be triggered unexpectedly. Companies planning to acquire a stake in a Japanese listed company, or which have already built up a stake, should therefore adapt their acquisition strategy and any reporting procedures to the new threshold as soon as possible.

—

Your point of contact in Japan: Michael Andreas Müller

Mueller Foreign Law Office

Shin-Kasumigaseki Building
3-3-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 100-0013, Japan

TEL:      +81 3 6805 5161
FAX:      +81 3 6805 5162

www.mueller-law.jp
info@mueller-law.jp

Singapore has revised the regulatory framework for Single Family Offices (SFOs). The new requirements have been in effect since 15 June 2026 and create a clearer and more consistent regulatory framework for existing and new family offices.

The key changes include:

• Mandatory registration of new SFOs with the MAS within 14 days of commencing operations;
• Introduction of an annual reporting obligation to the MAS;
• Requirement to maintain bank accounts with appropriately regulated banks.

A transitional period until 15 June 2027 applies to existing Single Family Offices.

Although the new rules introduce additional formal requirements, they are unlikely to result in any significant additional workload for most family offices. Rather, they underscore Singapore’s efforts to combine high regulatory standards with an attractive environment for asset management.

Our conclusion: Anyone who already operates an SFO in Singapore or is planning to establish one should review the new reporting and compliance obligations in good time.

—

Your point of contact in Singapore: Dr. Andreas Respondek

Respondek & Fan Pte Ltd

1 North Bridge Road
#16-03 High Street Centre
Singapore 179094

CELL:      +65 9751 0757
TEL:        +65 6324 0060
FAX:       +65 6324 0223

www.rflegal.com
respondek@rflegal.com

From 12 August 2026, the new Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) (Regulation (EU) 2025/40) will apply throughout the EU – directly, without national implementation, and without a transitional period for packaging placed on the market after that date. For D-A-CH-Companies that source goods from Malaysia or have them manufactured there, this is much more than a European environmental issue: the legal responsibility lies with the importer in the EU – not with the Malaysian supplier. This means that anyone who fails to obtain the necessary documentation in good time risks goods being held up at the border from August onwards or not being permitted to be placed on the market at all.

What is changing in practice:

For every type of packaging placed on the market, an EU Declaration of Conformity (DoC), together with technical documentation, will become mandatory from the effective date – issued by the manufacturer of the packaging, generally the Malaysian supplier, and retained by the EU importer for five to ten years. At the request of the authorities, the Declaration of Conformity must be submitted within ten days – anyone who does not make contractual provision for this will be unable to meet this deadline.

Companies from Germany and Austria will be subject to a range of additional obligations, even though many details have not yet been finalised. Nevertheless, in its guidance document of 30 March 2026, the European Commission made it clear that the deadlines are fixed, irrespective of the fact that detailed technical rules are still outstanding.

Malaysia’s role under the PPWR:

For many companies from Germany and Austria, their supply chains to Malaysia have not yet been reassessed – electronics, palm oil and rubber products, furniture, packaged food and consumer goods have been manufactured or packaged there for years. What is new is that these suppliers must now actively comply with documentation obligations that were previously unfamiliar to them: material composition, recycled content, recyclability and evidence relating to substances. If this documentation is missing, the importer from Germany or Austria bears the full risk – fines, market bans and, in case of doubt, reputational damage vis-à-vis its own trading partner and potentially also consumers.

Recommended actions for the remaining weeks:

• Packaging audit: Which types of packaging from Malaysia enter the EU market, and who is legally considered the “manufacturer” in each case within the meaning of the PPWR?
• Supplier enquiry: Written confirmation of the absence of PFAS and of the material composition should be obtained immediately – particularly in the case of food-contact packaging, there is no more time to lose.
• Contract amendment I: Existing supply agreements with Malaysian manufacturers should be supplemented with documentation and cooperation obligations relating to the PPWR before a dispute arises.
• Contract amendment II: Documentation and cooperation obligations are effective only in conjunction with audit rights, an obligation to indemnify and hold harmless, and a valid arbitration clause.
• EPR registration: Register in good time in all relevant Member States – the deadlines apply irrespective of the status of the Malaysian supply chain.

Conclusion: The PPWR primarily affects EU companies – but its impact extends throughout the entire supply chain, and Malaysia is a central hub in this chain for many D-A-CH-Companies. Those who act now will avoid unpleasant surprises in August. Our Malaysia partner, Dr Harald Sippel, has conducted training sessions for several dozen companies from Germany and Austria in recent weeks and provides ongoing advice to companies on the contractual implementation of the PPWR.

—

Your point of contact in Malaysia: Dr. Harald Sippel

Aqran Vijandran

5-2A, Medan Klang Lama 28, 419, Jalan Klang Lama
Wilayah Persekutuan
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

TEL:      +60 1 8211 4958

www.aqranvijandran.com
sippel@adwa-law.com

A growing number of Employer of Record (EOR) service providers are aggressively expanding their businesses in Korea, promising foreign companies the ability to hire employees without establishing a local legal entity. The narrative suggests that businesses can enter the Korean market with minimal costs, avoid entity registration, and maintain full operational control – all through an EOR service provider. Such a narrative, however, overlooks the significant legal and regulatory constraints under Korean law.

Korea’s legal framework, particularly the Act on the Protection of Dispatched Workers (the “Dispatch Act”), is largely incompatible with the EOR model as commonly described and offered by international EOR service providers. In addition, Korean labor law follows the principle of “substance over form”. Accordingly, contractual labels, no matter how carefully drafted, are not determinative in the eyes of Korean courts and regulators. Instead, what matters are the actual circumstances of the relationships among all parties involved.

The Dispatch Act establishes a strict regulatory framework with three key restrictions that may render many EOR arrangements legally untenable in Korea.

To begin with, the Dispatch Act permits worker dispatch only in 32 specific occupational categories under the Korean Standard Classification of Occupations (KSCO). These include certain professional and specialized occupations, such as IT specialists, customer service personnel, and translators. By contrast, the list excludes core business functions, direct manufacturing, and construction work. Accordingly, any dispatch arrangement falling outside these categories may constitute illegal dispatch, which is subject to significant legal consequences under Korean law.

Moreover, the Dispatch Act stipulates that only entities with explicit government approval from the Minister of Employment and Labor may operate as worker dispatch agencies. Operating without such a license constitutes a direct violation of the Dispatch Act.

Finally, the law imposes strict limits on the duration of worker dispatch. In principle, dispatch is permitted for a maximum of two one-year terms, i.e., no more than two years in total. Where a user company continues to use a dispatched worker beyond the two-year limit, the user company is generally required to directly employ the worker, unless the worker clearly expresses their dissent. Any attempt to circumvent this limitation triggers the same legal consequences as illegal dispatch.

How to Operate Legally in Korea: Possible Solutions

First, there is the true EOR model, though this may be difficult to implement in practice considering how the EOR model is commonly described and offered by international EOR service providers. To comply with the Dispatch Act, the EOR service provider must hold a valid dispatch business license, the duties assigned to dispatched workers must fall within the 32 permitted KSCO occupational categories, and the assignment period must not exceed two years.

Second, a valid subcontracting* arrangement may be used, provided that the subcontractor maintains genuine independence. This requires the subcontractor to have its own workforce and managerial structure, with no client supervision over individual workers. Performance should be evaluated strictly on an outcome basis.

* For foreign companies, understanding the difference between subcontracting and worker dispatch may be challenging, but it is nonetheless crucial. Korean labor law treats these two arrangements differently, and confusion between the two can easily lead to significant legal consequences.

Subcontracting refers to the engagement of a third party to deliver a specific result or complete a defined task. Under this arrangement, the subcontractor maintains full operational independence – it assigns, supervises, and evaluates its own workforce, and remains solely responsible for their management, while the client company focuses exclusively on the outcome. When properly structured, subcontracting may constitute a legally sound alternative to dispatch, provided that the subcontractor genuinely operates independently.

Worker dispatch, on the other hand, involves the supply of labor to a client company, where workers perform their duties under the client’s direction and supervision. The Dispatch Act defines this concept in Article 2(1) as “engaging a worker employed by a dispatch agency to work for, and under the direction and supervision of, a user company.” Korean courts primarily focus on the actual level of control exercised over workers. If the client company provides daily instructions, sets work schedules, and directly manages the day-to-day operations by dispatched workers, the arrangement is likely to be recognized as (illegal) dispatch, notwithstanding the formal contractual terms.

Lastly, another approach that may be considered is to employ local staff directly under the DACH parent company. However, this may easily create a permanent establishment (PE) in Korea, thereby triggering tax liabilities in Korea. Late or missing filings can result in penalties, interest, and compound interest. In addition, as the employee would receive income directly from the foreign parent company, the employee must personally handle all social insurance contributions in respect of such income under this model. Accordingly, the foreign parent companies are advised to verify that all required payments are properly made, in order to avoid any non-compliance with applicable legal requirements.

—

Your point of contact in Korea: Joachim Nowak

DAERYOOK & AJU LLC

7 – 16F, Donghoon Tower
317, Teheran-ro, Gangnam-gu
Seoul 06151, Republik Korea

CELL: +82 10 9001 6430
TEL: +82 2 772 5948
FAX: +82 2 3016 5222

www.draju.com
nowak@draju.com