Inside $2.1 mil. dispute between Kim Soo-hyun and cosmetics brand
Kim Soo-hyun / Xportsnews
A high-profile legal battle has erupted between Korean actor Kim Soo-hyun and a cosmetics company identified as Brand A, with both sides presenting sharply conflicting accounts over a 2.8 billion won ($2.1 million) damages lawsuit. The dispute stems from the brand’s claim that Kim damaged its public image amid a controversy involving the late actress Kim Sae-ron — an allegation the actor firmly denies.
On Nov. 21, the Seoul Central District Court held the first hearing in the civil suit, seven months after the case was filed in April. Brand A previously announced in March via social media that it was terminating its advertising contract with Kim, even though the one-year deal was originally valid through August 2025.
During the hearing, Brand A’s legal team argued that Kim violated the contract’s morality clause due to a public dispute surrounding his past relationship with Kim Sae-ron, who died in February.
The company recently increased the damages sought from 500 million won to 2.86 billion won, saying, “The contract specifies paying double the model fee in case of breach, and we added the actual losses we incurred.”
Kim Soo-hyun / Xportsnews
Brand A further said, “Kim Sae-ron revealed on social media before her death that she had dated Kim Soo-hyun. At that time, Kim denied the relationship, but after her passing, he acknowledged they had dated and said that it only occurred after she became an adult. The fact that a superstar like Kim Soo-hyun dated someone who was a minor is itself a breach of the morality clause.”
The company argued that if the relationship began when she was an adult, it still implies “emotional ties formed earlier,” which they said could constitute another violation.
Kim Soo-hyun’s side firmly denies allegations
Kim’s representatives rejected the claims as unfounded. They said, “It is completely untrue that they dated when she was a minor. They began dating only after she became a university student. A consensual relationship between adults cannot be considered a violation of the morality clause.”
They also argued that Brand A is misapplying the morality clause. “The initial denial of the dating rumor occurred before the contract period. It is difficult to understand how statements made when no contract existed can be considered a breach,” the team said. “The ‘public scandal’ clause only applies when a specific violation is clearly identified, and this case does not meet that standard.”
Kim’s lawyers added another point: Although Brand A announced the termination in March, Kim's promotional images allegedly remained on the brand’s Korean and Japanese websites and in physical stores in Japan until June. Kim’s team asked the court to confirm this.
Brand A responded by saying, “All related images and materials have been removed, and overseas stores were instructed to halt usage. The content has already been taken down.”
The next court hearing is scheduled for March 13, 2026, signaling a long legal process ahead for one of Korea’s most internationally recognized actors. With both sides refusingg to back down, the case is expected to remain a major topic in Korean entertainment and advertising circles.
This article from Xportsnews is adapted by a generative AI system and edited by The Korea Times.