[Exclusive]Park Soo-hong wins partial victory in 500 million won model fee lawsuit; first-instance ruling upheld, appeal dismissed

*This content was translated by AI.

Broadcaster Park Soo-hong filed a civil lawsuit worth approximately 500 million won, claiming he was not paid his advertising model fees. Although he won a partial victory, the case was sent to the second instance due to an appeal by the food company. However, the second-instance court has now issued a decision to dismiss the appeal.

The Seongnam Branch of the Suwon District Court previously ruled in the first instance that "Defendant Food Company A must pay Plaintiff Park Soo-hong a total of over 70 million won, along with corresponding late interest. The plaintiff's other claims are dismissed, and the plaintiff shall bear 84% of the litigation costs." In response, Company A filed an appeal on February 25, contesting the first-instance result.

Although the case was transferred to the second instance, it was confirmed that the court issued a decision to dismiss the appeal on May 27. Dismissal of an appeal means that even if the appeal petition meets statutory requirements, the court rules the appeal inadmissible due to defects in the appeal conditions.

If the dismissal of the appeal ruling becomes final, the first-instance ruling will also become final. If dissatisfied, an appeal to the Supreme Court may be filed.

In September 2023, Park Soo-hong filed a lawsuit claiming he was not paid 496 million won in model fees for a squid product advertisement he participated in for a convenience store chain. Although mediation procedures were pursued after filing the lawsuit, no settlement was reached. In September 2024, the court issued a recommendation for reconciliation, but the trial was postponed due to an objection filed by the defendant.

Subsequently, the Seoul Gangnam Police Station received a criminal complaint from Company A's representative, Mr. A, accusing Park Soo-hong of extortion. Regarding this, Park Soo-hong's legal representative, Do Hyun-soo of law firm (Y) Lin, stated, "Park Soo-hong learned through media reports that Food Company A had filed a criminal complaint against him for extortion." He added, "Since we have not yet received the complaint, it is suspected that the extensive media coverage is a media stunt intended to damage Park Soo-hong's image as a celebrity."

He continued, "In September 2023, Park Soo-hong filed a lawsuit seeking approximately 500 million won in compensation because Company A used his face in advertisements for over a year. The case is currently being heard at the Seongnam Branch of Suwon District Court."

He further explained, "It has been confirmed that Mr. A not only refused to accept the court's reconciliation decision ordering partial payment of model fees to Park Soo-hong but also failed to pay other manufacturers, leading to lawsuits against them. In this situation, Mr. A's sudden raising of this issue after 'two years' is an incomprehensible act, and his intentions are suspicious."

Furthermore, Park Soo-hong's side stated, "Most importantly, Mr. A's claim is that he heard threatening words from Park Soo-hong's legal representative in the past. In other words, 'having never heard such words directly from Park Soo-hong and filing a complaint against Park Soo-hong, who was not the perpetrator,' could constitute a false accusation." They added, "This matter is unrelated to Park Soo-hong. We are considering taking firm legal action against Mr. A's baseless false claims that damage Park Soo-hong's reputation."

In the subsequent trial, after hearing both parties' positions and examining witnesses, the court explained, "This case was in the process of contract negotiations, and although no contract was signed, it is a fact that advertising activities took place. The issue is how to calculate the costs, and no agreement was reached on this." The court then urged both sides, "Is there no way to find a point of agreement? Of course, the gap appears large."

In response, the company side said, "When we calculated, it resulted in a deficit, so payment is difficult." The court pointed out, "That falls within the defendant's business operations; having that as a basis does not mean costs cannot be paid." The court further explained, "However, I also feel uncertain about whether this is unfair."

The court stated, "Regardless of the first-instance outcome, anyone can appeal, and if the trial drags on, the parties involved will eventually suffer." The court once again requested that both sides try to find a point of agreement.

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

*This content was translated by AI.