"More evidence of school violence exists" allegations continue.. Will Cho Byung-gyu's truth battle continue? [Comprehensive]

*This content was translated by AI.

• Cho Byung-gyu side "Official confirmation received that 'no penalties for school violence' exist at New Zealand school," refutes claims

In the appeal trial of a damages lawsuit related to allegations of school violence against actor Cho Byung-gyu, whistleblower A has refused to retract their claims, while Cho's side has once again denied the allegations.

The Seoul High Court's 13th Civil Division (B) held the first argument session for the appeal trial in the damages lawsuit filed by Cho Byung-gyu against A on the 28th. Unlike the first instance, former agency HB Entertainment is no longer listed as an appellant, and the plaintiff's claim has been reduced to approximately 900 million won. Additionally, today's trial was conducted via video conference.

A appeared in court directly through voice testimony. The court requested identity verification, and A responded with somewhat hesitant speech: "I maintain dual nationality between South Korea and New Zealand. I am a person with innate dual nationality and have no legal representative. I did not receive the complaint, but I am aware of the verdict result and have reviewed the trial records."

When A added, "I also submitted a prepared statement," the court pointed out, "A prepared statement is not evidence."

A stated, "There is a need to verify the substantive truth regarding the allegations," expressing hope for further proceedings, and added, "I believe witness testimony is necessary. There are still evidences I have not yet submitted."

In contrast, Cho Byung-gyu's legal representative stated, "It is A's responsibility to provide at least minimal supporting materials regarding the assault described in this disclosure," and requested the court: "More than six months have passed since then, yet no evidence has been submitted. Although A claimed during the first trial that they would apply for witnesses, please determine whether such a request is truly necessary."

Furthermore, the representative argued, "The essence of this case lies in whether the assault described in the disclosure actually exists," and added, "A claims two individuals are involved; however, it remains unclear how their situations unfolded after the disclosure. Thus, there is doubt about the necessity of witness testimony. Additionally, we have officially confirmed that the relevant school in New Zealand has no records whatsoever regarding Cho Byung-gyu's alleged school violence, suspicions, or penalties."

The legal representative further added, "We request to summon individuals who studied at the same New Zealand school and class as Cho Byung-gyu at the time as witnesses for a brief examination."

After hearing both sides, the court scheduled the next session for October 23.

Previously, Seoul Central District Court's Civil Division 37, which handled the first trial, ruled in September 2025 that the plaintiff lost the approximately 4 billion won damages lawsuit between Cho Byung-gyu, HB Entertainment, and A, stating: "All claims by Cho Byung-gyu's side are dismissed, and the plaintiff shall bear all litigation costs."

At that time, Cho Byung-gyu's side claimed, "A posted false statements damaging our reputation, resulting in losses equivalent to 4 billion won due to terminated advertising model contracts and cancellations of drama, film, and variety show appearances," and demanded compensation including 200 million won for mental distress.

In response, the court ruled, "Based solely on evidence submitted by Cho Byung-gyu's side, it is difficult to conclude that the posts were false." Regarding A's deletion of the disclosure post, the court stated, "It appears not to be an admission of falsity but rather due to fear of criminal complaints and a massive damages lawsuit."

During the trial, approximately 20 statements from acquaintances submitted by Cho Byung-gyu's side were not accepted as evidence. The court reasoned, "All these individuals are Cho Byung-gyu's domestic acquaintances. It is difficult to verify the factual circumstances of an incident that occurred in New Zealand," and concluded that the statements did not prove false facts.

Among the acquaintances were some who had studied abroad with Cho Byung-gyu in New Zealand, but the court rejected them, stating, "These individuals are recognized as having a significant personal relationship with Cho Byung-gyu."

Consequently, Cho Byung-gyu's side appealed against the first-instance verdict.

Meanwhile, it is reported that the case in which Cho Byung-gyu filed a criminal complaint against A for defamation also received a decision not to prosecute.

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

*This content was translated by AI.