Kim Soo Hyun Resumes Legal Battle Over Ad Lawsuit

Lawsuits seeking damages against actor Kim Soo-hyun from advertisers are expected to reignite in earnest following the detention and transfer of Garo Sero Institute (hereinafter referred to as 'Gaseyeon') CEO Kim Se-eui. Civil trials that had been suspended are now set to resume.

On the 10th, the 14th Civil Division of the Suwon District Court will hold the third hearing for a damages claim lawsuit filed by health functional food company Frombio against Kim Soo-hyun and his agency Gold Medalist, seeking approximately 3.96 billion won. This lawsuit had been suspended for about eight months since the second hearing in October of last year, pending the outcome of the criminal case.

This hearing is the first civil trial to be held since CEO Kim's detention, and as doubts are raised about the credibility of the materials and claims disseminated by CEO Kim, it is expected to influence the ongoing civil lawsuits. In addition to Frombio, Kim Soo-hyun is facing damages lawsuits totaling over 10 billion won from multiple advertisers, including Classis, Cuckoo Electronics, and Trend Maker.

Recently, judicial authorities have been investigating CEO Kim, determining that some of the materials and claims he disseminated may be false. The police stated that CEO Kim is accused of spreading false information regarding allegations of a romantic relationship between Kim Soo-hyun and the late Kim Sae-ron during her minor years, and that Kim Soo-hyun's side pressured her to repay debts, leading to her death. Furthermore, evidence of voice manipulation using artificial intelligence (AI) and fabricated KakaoTalk conversations has also been detected.

On the 4th, the Gangnam Police Station in Seoul transferred CEO Kim to the prosecution with charges including defamation by false information under the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, violation of the Stalking Punishment Act, violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes, attempted coercion, and threats. The court issued an arrest warrant citing concerns of evidence destruction and flight, and a bail review was also denied.