이 기사는 2022년 01월 12일 08:06 thebell 에 표출된 기사입니다.

A LKB& Partners lawyer representing Hong Won-sik, owner and chairman of Namyang Dairy Products, has argued in a hearing on Friday that Hong was not aware that both his company and Hahn & Co were advised by the same law firm when he signed a deal to sell the controlling stake to the private equity firm last spring.

The Seoul Central District Court held the hearing after Hahn & Co filed an injunction seeking to bar Hong and his family members from selling their stakes in the company to Dayou Winia, a deal signed last November in the midst of the ongoing legal dispute with Hahn & Co.

Hong’s lawyer said that, following advice from PH & Company’s CEO who brokered the deal between Hong and Hahn & Co, the chairman hired law firm Kim & Chang to act as legal counsel on the sale of the family-owned company. But Hong didn’t know that the law firm also advised Hahn & Co, the lawyer argued.

“Representing both parties in the same case is banned under the Civil Act unless the contracting parties agree,” Hong’s lawyer said. “Hahn & Co and Kim & Chang will need to show whether they gained consent from chairman Hong.”

Hong’s lawyer also accused Kim & Chang of committing a breach of trust, saying that requests from the chairman were not included in the share purchase agreement.

“Excluding the firm’s dessert brand from the sale and special treatment for existing executives, which were things that matter very much to chairman Hong, were not contained in the share purchase agreement,” Hong’s lawyer said, arguing that this could lead to suspicion of “deceitfulness”.

When a judge asked whether the contracting parties and their legal counsels had met together before signing the deal, Hong’s lawyer answered that didn’t happen. A lawyer representing Hahn & Co said while that might not happen, Hong must have recognized through PH & Company’s CEO that Kim & Chang was advising both parties.

Asked by the judge whether the chairman expressed his disagreement to Kim & Chang, Hong’s lawyer responded that he had conveyed disapproval. The judge asked again how’s that possible when the chairman recognized the law firm advised both parties only after the deal was signed, and then Hong’s lawyer corrected his answer by saying that Hong did that after the deal was struck.

The judge continued to ask whether the chairman took further action such as legal action against Kim & Chang, and Hong’s lawyer said “No such action has been taken yet”.

Answering the judge’s question about a service agreement between Hong and Kim & Chang, Hong’s lawyer said there was no written contract and that he would check further on the fee payment.

After hearing from both sides, the judge set the deadline to accept additional documents for January 14. (Reporting by Gyoung-tae Kim)