A new hearing was held on January 16 2026 before the Seoul Central District Court in the case of Kim Soo-hyun to the Cuckoo Electronics group, of which he was the muse. The subsidiaries Cuckoo Electronics, Cuckoo Homesys and the Malaysian branch Cuckoo International Berhad are claiming approximately 2 billion won in damages to the actor and his agency Gold Medalist, following the breach of their advertising contract.
Kim Soo-hyun had been hired as the brand's exclusive model, but Cuckoo ended the collaboration after the appearance of a relationship controversy alleged affair with the late Kim Sae-ron, which began when she was a minor. At the first hearing, however, the court recalled that’a private controversy did not automatically constitute a valid reason for terminating the contract.
International contracts, unclear liability and disputed termination dates
During this 2nd hearing, the court raised several major issues. In particular, it insisted on the the need to legally qualify the nature of the termination Is it a breach of contract provided for in the clauses, or a termination based on a fault attributable to the actor? The legal consequences (restitution of sums and calculation of damages) differ radically according to this classification.
The court also asked for clarification on the international advertising contracts, These include the agreement signed for Malaysia, as well as a global agreement covering 6 countries. The wording “during the term of the contract” is problematic: it does not make it clear whether the actor's financial liability applies only in the event of proven fault, or also if advertising becomes impossible due to external controversy. According to the court, Without a precise interpretation of these clauses, it is impossible to assess the actual amount of damage..
Another key point is the very structure of the Malaysian contract. Kim Soo-hyun is not listed as a contracting party, despite the fact that the liability clauses refer to an obligation also incumbent on the actor. The court asked the plaintiffs to explain why the actor was not included as a signatory, This inconsistency is not only the result of the fact that the company has been granted a claim for financial compensation, but also the legal basis for this inconsistency.
Finally, the question of exact time of termination remains central. The court ruled that a simple letter referring to the impossibility of maintaining the contract, without any specific legal grounds, was not sufficient to constitute a valid notice. The judges asked Cuckoo to clarify whether the letter sent on March 24 should be considered as the official termination, or whether this should be set at the date of notification of the summons. Otherwise, the determination of the amount of compensation could be left entirely to the discretion of the court.
The hearing also addressed factual discrepancies surrounding the chronology of certain events linked to Kim Sae-ron, including the dating of photographs and financial elements. Both parties indicated that the results of the ongoing investigation could help clarify these points.
The next hearing has been set for April 10, This is the date on which the court will examine the additional information requested on the facts, the contractual clauses and the legal nature of the termination. Let's hope that this time, the conclusions of the investigation will really come out.
South Korea judicial system needs to do better. Their police department needs to seat up.
#westandwithkimsoohyun