[Exclusive]Model Park Soo-hong's lawsuit over modeling fees to resume on July 23 in second trial..Defendant changed [Star Issue]

*This content was translated by AI.

Broadcaster Park Soo-hong's civil lawsuit seeking approximately 500 million won in unpaid advertising modeling fees will resume its second trial in July.

The Fourth Civil Division (B) of the Suwon High Court is scheduled to hold the first trial session of the appeal in the contract payment lawsuit filed by Park Soo-hong against food company A on July 23.

Previously, the Suwon District Court Seongnam Branch ruled in the first trial that "Defendant food company A shall pay Plaintiff Park Soo-hong a total of over 70 million won plus delayed interest. The rest of the Plaintiff's 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 trial outcome.

Although the case was transferred to the second trial, it was confirmed that the court issued a decision to dismiss the appeal against the company on May 27. Dismissal of appeal means that when an appeal fails to meet legal requirements despite the appeal document satisfying statutory conditions, the court dismisses the appeal by judgment.

As a result, in the second trial, Park Soo-hong's side will continue the legal dispute with an individual rather than company A.

Park Soo-hong filed the lawsuit in September 2023, claiming he did not receive 496 million won in modeling fees for a convenience store squid product he participated in as an advertising model. After filing the lawsuit, mediation procedures were conducted, but no agreement was reached. In September 2024, the court issued a recommendation for settlement, but the trial was postponed due to an objection from the defendant's side.

Subsequently, the Seoul Gangnam Police Station received a criminal complaint from food company representative A alleging that Park Soo-hong made threats. Regarding this, Park Soo-hong's legal representative, Do Hyun-soo, a lawyer at law firm (Y) Lin, stated, "Park Soo-hong learned through media reports that food company A filed a criminal complaint against him for threats." He added, "Since we have not yet received the complaint document and do not know the exact details, we suspect this extensive media coverage is a media stunt intended to damage the celebrity's image."

He continued, "Park Soo-hong filed a lawsuit in September 2023 seeking approximately 500 million won for company A using his face in advertisements for over a year, and the case is currently being heard at the Suwon District Court Seongnam Branch."

He further explained, "Representative A also refused to accept the settlement decision ordering partial payment of modeling fees to Park Soo-hong and was additionally sued by manufacturers for non-payment. In this situation, it is incomprehensible and suspicious for Representative A to suddenly raise this issue after 'two years'."

Park Soo-hong's side also stated, "Most importantly, Representative 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.' Park Soo-hong was not involved. We are considering firm legal action against Representative A's baseless false claims that damage Park Soo-hong's reputation."

In the subsequent trial, after hearing both sides' positions and examining witnesses, the court explained, "This case was in the process of contract negotiations, and although a contract was not 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 asked both parties, "Is there no possibility of finding a common ground?" and added, "Of course, the gap appears large."

When the company side replied, "When we calculated, it was negative, so payment is difficult," the court pointed out, "That is within the defendant's business area, and that alone 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 trial outcome, anyone can file an appeal, and if the trial drags on, the parties will eventually face difficulties," and once again requested that they try to find a common ground.

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

*This content was translated by AI.