[Exclusive]Lee Seung-ki refuses to move out of 'Hannam-dong villa' owned by Cha Ga-won..10.5 billion won deposit dispute intensifies

*This content was translated by AI.

• Legal representative: "No legal issues with possession..timing of criminal complaint filing undecided"

Singer and actor Lee Seung-ki will not leave the Hannam-dong villa amid a 10.5 billion won deposit dispute. Although the lease contract for the villa owned by Cha Ga-won, chairman of PIA Group and CEO of One Hundred Label, has expired, Lee Seung-ki's side has failed to receive the deposit back. Consequently, they have decided to maintain possession rather than move out and have warned of criminal legal action.

Yoon Yong-seok, a lawyer at Hyunmyeong Law Office representing Lee Seung-ki, told StarNews on the 6th: "Lee Seung-ki's current lease contract expired today, but he has not received the deposit from Chairman Cha Ga-won." He added, "He will continue to occupy this property without moving out, and there is absolutely no legal issue with this."

He further stated, "We are also planning to file a criminal complaint regarding this matter, though the exact timing of submission remains undecided."

Previously, in 2024, Lee Seung-ki signed a lease contract for the Hannam-dong villa owned by Cha Ga-won and his spouse in Seoul's Yongsan District for 10.5 billion won. Subsequently, Lee Seung-ki's side claimed that Cha Ga-won demanded a deposit higher than market value, while Cha Ga-won's side countered that Lee Seung-ki requested a lease contract instead of an exclusive performance contract to avoid taxes on multiple properties.

Meanwhile, Cha Ga-won was arrested on the 3rd on suspicion of fraud involving over 30 billion won. As the expiration date for the lease contract of the villa where Lee Seung-ki resided approached, and having failed to recover his deposit, Lee Seung-ki announced he would take legal action.

If the deposit is not returned, the situation could escalate into civil and criminal lawsuits. Additionally, Cha Ga-won's side has argued that "this villa was not a standard lease contract but rather a property transfer related to an exclusive performance agreement," suggesting that disputes over legal interpretations of the contract may intensify.

In response, lawyers Yoon Yong-seok and Jang Jae-won of Hyunmyeong Law Office issued a formal statement on this day: "We determine that Cha Ga-won's failure to return the deposit is not merely a case of non-refund but constitutes 'jeonse fraud,' where he received the deposit despite having no intention or ability to return it."

They further argued, "This matter goes beyond the typical form of landlords failing to return deposits. It appears that a sophisticated fraud scheme was strategically employed, involving a famous celebrity obtaining a large loan to sign a high-value lease contract, followed by misappropriation of the deposit."

Lee Seung-ki's side emphasized that there are indications Cha Ga-won's side had anticipated executing a lease loan in Lee Seung-ki's name even before signing the global lease agreement. "This property was previously subject to a sale valued at around 7 billion won, but the contract was terminated. Subsequently, Cha Ga-won's side concealed this fact and conducted an appraisal to sign a global lease at a higher amount than the original sale price. In this process, they structured the contract to enable approximately 7.3 billion won in lease loans before signing with Lee Seung-ki."

They also stated, "Immediately after receiving the deposit, Cha Ga-won and his spouse transferred ownership of the property from a trust company. It appears they planned a fraud scheme by utilizing high-value lease loans available to famous celebrities to secure funds needed for acquiring the real estate, with no intention of returning it upon contract expiration."

Additionally, Lee Seung-ki's side raised the possibility that multiple individuals, including Cha Ga-won's spouse, real estate agents, and those involved in loans and appraisals, played roles in this matter. "Cha Ga-won's legal representative recently stated to both the court and the artist's side that there were no issues with returning the deposit. However, on the contract expiration date, his spouse claimed return was difficult due to Cha Ga-won's absence. Relying on this, we prepared for moving, but related costs have now become losses."

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

*This content was translated by AI.