table of content table of content
The Kim Soo-hyun case is taking on unprecedented proportions in the Korean entertainment industry. Since the emergence of rumors accusing him of having had a relationship with actress Kim Sae-ron when she was a minor (false accusations since clearly proven, pending validation in the criminal case by the courts) several brands for which he was a model have launched a series of cumulative civil claims in excess of 73 billion won turning the case into one of the biggest contractual disputes ever seen by a Korean star.
At the heart of the debate: the crucial legal question of the violation of the obligation to maintain dignitya clause present in the majority of contracts linking celebrities to brands. The courts must now determine whether as yet unconfirmed allegations, currently under (lengthy) investigation, can be considered as contractual misconduct justifying breach of contract and colossal compensation.
Dinto accuses: "Kim Soo-hyun violated the dignity clause".
On November 21, at the first hearing before the Seoul Central District Court, the Dinto cosmetics brand of which he was the face reaffirmed that it had terminated the advertising contract in March, despite a due date of August 2025, because the controversy would have damaged its image. His representative said at the hearing, "Because of the Kim Sae-ron controversy, Kim Soo-hyun violated his obligation to maintain his dignity, and it became impossible to continue the advertising contract."
The brand insisted on one thing: the actor's change of heart, they claimed, had broken the public's trust. They explain: "Before Kim Sae-ron's death, publications on social networks claimed that she was dating him. At the time, Kim Soo-hyun denied any relationship. But after the death, when it resurfaced, he suddenly declared: 'It's true that we were together, but only after she came of age.'"
For the brand, this explanation is not enough to rule out a prior relationship: "The mere fact of having been associated with a relationship with a minor already constitutes a violation of the dignity clause."
The brand therefore raised the amount claimed from 500 million won to 28.6 billion won. "In the event of a breach of contract, the model's fees are doubled in the event of an affront to dignity, and we have added the actual damages suffered."
According to her, several advertisers have ceased all collaboration, while a drama (Knock Off) filmed by Kim Soo-hyun has had its broadcasting suspended.
The defense counters: "The facts go back to before the contract".
Kim Soo-hyun's lawyers dispute the accusations point by point. First of all, they deny that there was any relationship before the actress came of age: "The rumor of a relationship when she was a minor is totally unfounded. The relationship, if it existed, only began after she entered university."
Then they denounce what they consider to be a contractually invalid argument: "Kim Soo-hyun's first denial of this rumor dates back to a period prior to the contract. It is absurd to consider comments made before signing as a violation of the dignity clause."
They also question Dinto's consistency, claiming that she continued to use the actor's image for several months after the alleged terminationEven after March 17, Kim Soo-hyun's photos were still visible until June on official Korean and Japanese websites, and even today in some Japanese stores. Evidence put forward by fans who took photos and videos in stores on November 19:
See in Threads
Dinto denies any current use, saying: "We deleted all the images as soon as we terminated the contract. If there are any left in Japan, we've asked for them to be removed. Fans have raised the issue, but the ads are no longer in use."
Legal issues: what is a "violation of dignity"?
The case goes far beyond a simple commercial dispute. It raises a key legal question:
At what point do allegations concerning an actor's private life become sufficiently established to justify a breach of contract?
The court seems cautious. At a previous hearing in another case related to Kim Soo-hyun (involving Cuckoo Group subsidiaries), the court asked the plaintiffs, "Are we to consider that the contract can be broken as soon as trust is broken, or must the breach be due to a specific fault on the part of the actor? Please clarify this point."
And again:
"There is currently a dispute as to whether there was a relationship when she was underage, and an investigation is underway. At this stage, please clarify exactly what part of the contract Kim Soo-hyun is alleged to have breached. Then we'll decide whether to wait for the results of the investigation."
Legal experts point out that, as a general rule, the dignity clause applies during the contractual period only. To consider that prior facts can invalidate a contract, it would be necessary to prove intentional concealment or wilful deceit, a very high threshold.
A case that could set a precedent in the entertainment world
With over 73 billion won of accumulated claims, and Kim Soo-hyun's property placed under seizure for 3 billion won, the case could redefine the way advertising contracts are drawn up in Korea.
However, justice seems to want to proceed cautiously. The court recalled that the accusations concerning the alleged relationship with a minor have not yet been establishedan investigation is still underway. Against this backdrop, it remains difficult to prove an actual breach of the morality clause or a direct link between the rumors and the losses cited by the companies.
The court asked both parties to provide detailed evidence concerning existence and extent of the alleged damage.
The court must now decide three major questions: Can unproven accusations constitute a violation of the dignity clause? Can facts predating a contract justify termination? Do the brands' financial losses have a proven direct link with the actor?
The next judicial round is scheduled for March 13, 2026 with this brand, in what could become one of the biggest civil cases involving a Korean star.
