KLAWGURU.COM

Korean Law Demystified!

Ten Years of Partnership, One Changed Password: Court Rules Unilateral Email Lockout Is Void

By ,

When a decade-long law firm partnership collapsed, a dispute over a shared email account ended up in court. The ruling clarifies that jointly used business assets — including digital accounts — belong to the partnership as a whole, and one partner cannot unilaterally lock the other out. Here are the key points.

Issue

When dissolving law firm partners fight over access to a shared business email account, can one partner lawfully change the password and business registration details to exclude the other — and does doing so give rise to damages?

Facts

  • Attorneys A and B ran Law Firm C together for over ten years before terminating their partnership agreement. They continued operating a joint office under the same name until Attorney A demanded dissolution.
  • As the relationship deteriorated, both sides took turns seizing control of the shared email account. Attorney B first changed the account’s designated administrator to himself. Attorney A responded by reassigning the account representative to herself and changing the password.
  • Attorney B then escalated: he changed the business registration number linked to the account to one under his own name, reset the password again, and crucially, did not tell Attorney A the new credentials. From that point on, Attorney A was locked out entirely.
  • Attorney A pursued three successive legal actions: an injunction to compel disclosure of the new password, an objection to enforcement proceedings, and finally a damages suit — the subject of this ruling.

Rule

  • Under Korean civil law, property held by a partnership (조합재산) is owned jointly by all partners in a form of co-ownership known as 합유 — a form of collective ownership where no individual partner can unilaterally dispose of or alter the shared asset without the consent of all.
  • Any disposition or modification of jointly held property made without unanimous consent is void.

Court Decision

  • The Seoul Central District Court (Civil Division 30, Presiding Judge Kim Seok-beom) ruled that the shared email account constituted partnership property under the joint venture agreement, meaning both attorneys had guaranteed rights of access.
  • Attorney B’s unilateral changes to the business registration number and password — made without Attorney A’s consent — were declared legally void. The court ordered Attorney B to restore the business registration number to the original law firm’s name.
  • However, the court rejected Attorney A’s claim for monetary damages, both financial and emotional.

Why No Damages Were Awarded

The court found that despite the procedural violation, the circumstances did not support a damages award, for several reasons.

  • There was no concrete evidence showing how Attorney A’s work was specifically disrupted or how much financial loss, if any, resulted.
  • Attorney A had sufficient time to preserve or transfer past work data from the account before being locked out.
  • As a partner, Attorney A retains the right to claim a share of residual partnership assets upon dissolution — a process through which the email account can be properly wound up and necessary historical data transferred.
  • Attorney B also had his own reasons for seeking sole control of the account during the dissolution process.

Key Takeaways

  • Shared business email accounts used by a law firm partnership qualify as partnership property, giving each partner equal rights of access that cannot be overridden unilaterally.
  • Changing passwords, administrator credentials, or linked registration details without a co-partner’s consent is legally void — not merely a breach of good faith.
  • Proving damages from a digital lockout requires concrete evidence of specific harm. Courts will not presume financial or emotional loss from the act alone, particularly where alternative remedies exist through the dissolution process.
  • Partnership dissolution agreements should address digital assets — email accounts, shared drives, client databases — explicitly, to avoid exactly this kind of dispute.

Why This Matters

This case is a timely reminder that digital assets are legal assets. As law practice increasingly depends on shared online infrastructure, the rules governing physical partnership property apply with equal force to email accounts and other jointly operated platforms. For practitioners advising dissolving partnerships — legal or otherwise — this ruling underscores the importance of building digital asset protocols into dissolution agreements from the outset, rather than leaving them to be fought over after the relationship breaks down.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=219212&page=2&total=25035

Leave a comment