Park Soo-hong won the modeling fee lawsuit.."100 million out of 500 million" [the star scene]

*This content was translated by AI.

Broadcaster Park Soo-hong won some of the civil lawsuits worth about 500 million won, which he filed for not receiving the advertising model fee.

On the 11th, Seongnam Branch of the Suwon District Court held a court ruling on the contract amount filed by Park Soo-hong against a parent food company.

On this day, the court said, "The defendant should pay the plaintiff a total of 100 million won and delayed interest accordingly. Other plaintiffs' claims for prosecution are dismissed, and 84% of the litigation costs are borne by the plaintiff."

Park Soo-hong filed a lawsuit in September 2023 saying he did not receive 496 million won in modeling fees for squid products at a convenience store where he participated as an advertising model. After filing the lawsuit, the court failed to reach an agreement, and in September 2024, the court made a decision to recommend reconciliation, but the ruling was postponed due to the defendant's objection.

Since then, the Gangnam Police Station in Seoul has received a complaint against Park Soo-hong from the representative of a food company, A. "Park Soo-hong received the news through media reports on the 29th that a food company A had filed a complaint for intimidation," said lawyer Lin Do-hyun, Park Soo-hong's legal representative. "We suspect media play to damage the image of celebrities for such massive reports at a time when we do not know the exact details because we have not yet received the complaint."

"In September 2023, Park Soo-hong filed a lawsuit for payment of about 500 million won for A's company's use of his face in advertisements for more than a year, and the case is being heard by Seongnam Branch of the Suwon District Court," he said.

At the same time, it is confirmed that Mr. A did not accept the reconciliation decision to pay part of the model fee to Park Soo-hong and was also accused of not paying the manufacturers. In such a situation, it is an incomprehensible act for A to suddenly raise such a problem in 'two years' and its intention is suspected.

In addition, Park Soo-hong said, "Most importantly, A's claim was that he was told of intimidation by Park's legal representative in the past. In other words, "I have never heard such words directly from Park Soo-hong, and submitting a complaint against Park Soo-hong, not an actor," could be an innocent act. "We will consider a firm legal response to the act of defaming Park Soo-hong with A's unfounded and false claims," he added.

In the following trial, the court said, "This case was a process in which the contract negotiation stage was in progress, and although the contract was not signed, it is also true that advertising exists," and explained, "It is about how to calculate the cost, but there was no agreement on this." He then said to both sides, "Can't we find an agreement?" and added, "Of course, the gap seems large."

In response, the company said, "When we settle the account, it is difficult to pay because it is negative." The court pointed out, "It's the defendant's business area, so it doesn't mean that we can't pay for it just on the basis of that." The court then explained, "However, I also think I am not sure about the part that this is unfair."

The court asked to find an agreement again, saying, "No matter how the results of the first trial come out, anyone will appeal, and if the trial is prolonged, it will eventually be difficult for the parties."

<© STARNEWS. All rights reserved. No reproduction or redistribution allowed.>

*This content was translated by AI.