At today’s hearing in the lawsuit in which Dinto seeks damages from Gold Medalist and Kim Soo-hyun, the court was presided over by a newly appointed judge who first needed to review the procedural posture of the case and the positions of the parties. No substantive issues were discussed during the session, and no procedural measures were taken. The court limited itself to confirming the status of the proceedings and will subsequently assess the claims and defenses advanced by both sides. Nevertheless, Dinto’s legal representative continues to rely on contractual clauses that are not expressly stipulated in the agreement between the parties. It should be noted that terminating a contract without a legitimate reason may itself constitute a breach of contract attributable to Dinto. Kim Soo-hyun’s legal representative from LKB & Partners explained: “Unlike the first hearing, the presiding judge has changed this time. The court merely confirmed the matters previously discussed and recorded the procedural progress of the case before adjourning.” The lawyer also stated: “The court inquired about the status of Kim Soo-hyun’s complaint against Kim Se-ui, the operator of the YouTube channel Garo 0. However, no decision has yet been issued in that matter. We expect a ruling to be made in the near future.” The defense further pointed out that, although the company announced the termination of the contract in March, Kim Soo-hyun’s promotional images reportedly remained on the brand’s Korean and Japanese websites and in Japanese retail stores until June. In response, the plaintiff stated that all related promotional materials have since been removed and that local agencies in Japan were instructed to cease using the images. As both parties maintain their respective positions, the dispute appears far from resolution. The next hearing is scheduled for April 24, when further discussions on the merits of the case are expected to continue. In essence, Dinto’s representative acknowledged that the company continued to use Kim Soo-hyun’s image even after officially terminating the collaboration and initiating legal proceedings against him, while still maintaining that it was the injured party. It should also be recalled that at the previous hearing the plaintiff increased the amount of damages claimed, and the judge at that time adopted an active role in the proceedings, expressly requesting Dinto to submit evidence supporting the alleged damages. At today’s hearing, however, no such evidence was presented. Although the presiding judge has changed, the matters previously discussed remain recorded in the official minutes of the court session. Under the principles of civil procedure, any claim brought before the court must be substantiated by evidence. Accordingly, Dinto bears the burden of proving the existence and extent of the alleged damages and of demonstrating that its decision to terminate the collaboration (reportedly based on rumors) was justified and did not itself constitute a breach of contract that caused the alleged harm. Nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans.
This day was not an ordinary anniversary, it was an international one in which support for Kim Soo Hyun crossed borders and demonstrated once again that love can unite unknown people. And the fans did not stop there, they made substantial donations for children with heart diseases, because Kim Soo Hyun inspired them. There is a saying, those who think alike, gather together. You can see what feelings united Kim Soo Hyun's fans, from their actions. You can see what unites those who spread hatred, from their messages. Today the love, the empathy and goodness defeated hatred. Happy birthday Kim Soo Hyun, may you live the same way, inspiring and urging others to make good deeds.
While waiting for the next news about the results of the investigations into Kim Soo-hyun's complaints from the Gangnam Police, you have the opportunity to enjoy the unforgettable moments of the clown on duty. Enjoy!⬇️
Cuckoo vs. GM and Kim Soo-hyun lawsuit part III. In an attempt to justify the desire to terminate the contract, the plaintiff - Cuck** - introduced a discussion about messages, debts, and photographs allegedly involving the late KSR, a line of argument that prompted “laughter” from the audience. After all, if such matters are indeed relevant, logic would suggest that the civil proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome of the criminal case. The judge therefore asked whether the plaintiff considered it preferable to wait for the criminal proceedings to be finalized. Likely overwhelmed by the many plot twists, the plaintiffs’ lawyer agreed that waiting might be better—despite his client’s professed interest in concluding the case as quickly as possible. The court ultimately requested that both parties submit their positions on the legal nature of the alleged grounds for termination, the scope of the claimed damages, and the interpretation of the foreign contractual provisions. The hearing was then adjourned until April 10, the curtain falling on a second act rich in judicial humor.
Cuckoo vs. GM and Kim Soo-hyun lawsuit part II. As every good comedy unfolds in several acts, so too does the famous Trial of the Cuck**s, which now advances to its next scene: one in which the plaintiffs must finally explain on what legal grounds they unilaterally terminated the contract. This task is made slightly more challenging by the inconvenient fact that the contract allows termination only in the event of a breach of contractual obligations, not on the basis of a controversy, scandal, or public drama. As any unilateral termination must be effected through a formal notice identifying the specific contractual clauses allegedly breached, the court quite reasonably asked the plaintiffs’ lawyers to clarify a simple point: do they consider the email they sent, or the lawsuit itself, to constitute the notice of termination? The question was unavoidable, given that Cuck** is seeking damages without explaining how—or from what date—those damages were calculated. Moreover, the initial notification fails to meet the legal requirements of a termination notice, making it difficult to conclude that the contract was ever validly terminated in the first place. Through all this Shakespearean confusion, the judge demonstrated his determination to unravel the mystery of the plaintiff's complicated claim.
Cuckoo vs. GM and Kim Soo-hyun lawsuit part I. As most of you already know, Friday, January 16, marked yet another court appearance in the Cuckoo vs. GM and KSH lawsuit. It seems that in this new year we have gracefully transitioned from operetta to Shakespeare’s comic opera The Comedy of Errors. The “famous” lawsuit filed by Cuck** against Kim Soo-hyun continues to challenge the court’s powers of interpretation. Although Cuck** seeks compensation from Kim Soo-hyun, there is, inconveniently, no contract with the actor, and the contract signed with GM does not even mention his name. This naturally raises a small but troublesome question: in what capacity, exactly, did they sue KSH? The plaintiffs themselves appeared unsure, attempting to distinguish between the defendants with all the confidence - and success—of Shakespeare’s famously confused characters. (To be continued)
That article made me so angry. It was the second of its kind in Korea Times. The first was titled "South Korea…
We hope that the new regulation on defamation through the spread of false information will put a stop to this type of “journalist.” Under the new rules, they can be required to pay compensation up to five times the damage caused. Considering the harm done to KSH through contract terminations, multiplied by five, I truly believe that this new regulation will have a real impact.
Some people falsely condemn Kim Soo-hyun (KSH), accusing him of having a relationship with KSR when she was a minor, and then go on to spread further false claims. Their main source? Everything screamed on YouTube by Garo Sero Research Institute. The irony is impressive. Kim Se-ui, (still) CEO of Garo Sero Research Institute, is not a truth-teller exposing lies. He is a repeat offender, professionally monetizing outrage, misinformation, and—when useful—the personal data of his own followers. For anyone who still believes Garo Sero is a beacon of truth, here is reality: After a prior conviction for spreading false information about the sitting president, Kim Se-ui was again convicted, this time for illegally using personal data obtained from his subscribers. Under the false pretext of recruiting an “election fraud monitoring group,” Garo Sero collected names and phone numbers from followers. About a year later, that same data was conveniently reused to promote Kim Se-ui’s own political campaign. Roughly 400 subscribers received campaign texts saying, “Please trust Kim Se-ui.” Subscribers who thought they were protecting democracy instead discovered they were part of a mailing list for his ambitions. Victims stated they were shocked, felt their personal information had been leaked, and suffered psychological distress, fearing further misuse. The 7th Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Court agreed. That’s your “hero of the nation.” Not a misunderstanding. Not gossip. An actual criminal conviction for misusing personal data collected for another purpose. A different kind of Coupang—smaller scale. For now. Good luck to his subscribers. https://news.nate.com/view/20251223n14508 https://www.topstarnews.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=15924947 https://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1008294887 https://biz.heraldcorp.com/article/10507924
The new year has not even started well and we can already see the first protagonists of the operetta "The Bat", but not by Johan Strauss-son but written by Ga Se-yon &comp. Imitating the announcement of a news story, the first character makes an unexpected advertisement for the tvN anniversary video. Considering that tvN has been involved in several scandals lately, it was expected that the anniversary clip would need to be spread in a unique way. Excellent choice. https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/entertainment/20251211/koreas-entertainment-industry-struggles-as-celebrity-scandals-derail-productions We are now waiting on Kim Soo-hyun's page the other uninvited disguised characters from Act II. Let's see who appears first. Or rather, we know who will appear but let's see with which account...
In South Korea, I believe celebrities need their own agency to stand up against lies and unfair treatment. Otherwise,…
You're right. Besides, people and agents in the field are involved in this masquerade, in addition to politicians, because the rise of a man who was not in control of the system was already very disturbing.
6 
11 
1 
Nevertheless, Dinto’s legal representative continues to rely on contractual clauses that are not expressly stipulated in the agreement between the parties. It should be noted that terminating a contract without a legitimate reason may itself constitute a breach of contract attributable to Dinto.
Kim Soo-hyun’s legal representative from LKB & Partners explained:
“Unlike the first hearing, the presiding judge has changed this time. The court merely confirmed the matters previously discussed and recorded the procedural progress of the case before adjourning.”
The lawyer also stated:
“The court inquired about the status of Kim Soo-hyun’s complaint against Kim Se-ui, the operator of the YouTube channel Garo 0. However, no decision has yet been issued in that matter. We expect a ruling to be made in the near future.”
The defense further pointed out that, although the company announced the termination of the contract in March, Kim Soo-hyun’s promotional images reportedly remained on the brand’s Korean and Japanese websites and in Japanese retail stores until June.
In response, the plaintiff stated that all related promotional materials have since been removed and that local agencies in Japan were instructed to cease using the images. As both parties maintain their respective positions, the dispute appears far from resolution. The next hearing is scheduled for April 24, when further discussions on the merits of the case are expected to continue.
In essence, Dinto’s representative acknowledged that the company continued to use Kim Soo-hyun’s image even after officially terminating the collaboration and initiating legal proceedings against him, while still maintaining that it was the injured party. It should also be recalled that at the previous hearing the plaintiff increased the amount of damages claimed, and the judge at that time adopted an active role in the proceedings, expressly requesting Dinto to submit evidence supporting the alleged damages.
At today’s hearing, however, no such evidence was presented. Although the presiding judge has changed, the matters previously discussed remain recorded in the official minutes of the court session. Under the principles of civil procedure, any claim brought before the court must be substantiated by evidence. Accordingly, Dinto bears the burden of proving the existence and extent of the alleged damages and of demonstrating that its decision to terminate the collaboration (reportedly based on rumors) was justified and did not itself constitute a breach of contract that caused the alleged harm. Nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans.
https://sbsstar.net/article/N1008456953/youtuber-referred-to-prosecutors-for-defamation-over-embezzlement-claims-against-kim-saerons-exmanager#1
https://www.allkpop.com/article/2026/02/kim-soo-hyuns-korean-and-global-fan-union-donates-100-million-krw-to-celebrate-his-birthday
https://world.kbs.co.kr/service/contents_view.htm?lang=e&menu_cate=enternews&id=&board_seq=182800&page=238&board_code=
https://inquirersuper.com.ph/super-k/kim-soo-hyun-donates-100-million-won-for-covid-19-prevention/
https://share.google/z5uO2akC0i6eKkJEB
In an attempt to justify the desire to terminate the contract, the plaintiff - Cuck** - introduced a discussion about messages, debts, and photographs allegedly involving the late KSR, a line of argument that prompted “laughter” from the audience. After all, if such matters are indeed relevant, logic would suggest that the civil proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome of the criminal case. The judge therefore asked whether the plaintiff considered it preferable to wait for the criminal proceedings to be finalized. Likely overwhelmed by the many plot twists, the plaintiffs’ lawyer agreed that waiting might be better—despite his client’s professed interest in concluding the case as quickly as possible.
The court ultimately requested that both parties submit their positions on the legal nature of the alleged grounds for termination, the scope of the claimed damages, and the interpretation of the foreign contractual provisions.
The hearing was then adjourned until April 10, the curtain falling on a second act rich in judicial humor.
As every good comedy unfolds in several acts, so too does the famous Trial of the Cuck**s, which now advances to its next scene: one in which the plaintiffs must finally explain on what legal grounds they unilaterally terminated the contract. This task is made slightly more challenging by the inconvenient fact that the contract allows termination only in the event of a breach of contractual obligations, not on the basis of a controversy, scandal, or public drama.
As any unilateral termination must be effected through a formal notice identifying the specific contractual clauses allegedly breached, the court quite reasonably asked the plaintiffs’ lawyers to clarify a simple point: do they consider the email they sent, or the lawsuit itself, to constitute the notice of termination? The question was unavoidable, given that Cuck** is seeking damages without explaining how—or from what date—those damages were calculated. Moreover, the initial notification fails to meet the legal requirements of a termination notice, making it difficult to conclude that the contract was ever validly terminated in the first place. Through all this Shakespearean confusion, the judge demonstrated his determination to unravel the mystery of the plaintiff's complicated claim.
As most of you already know, Friday, January 16, marked yet another court appearance in the Cuckoo vs. GM and KSH lawsuit. It seems that in this new year we have gracefully transitioned from operetta to Shakespeare’s comic opera The Comedy of Errors.
The “famous” lawsuit filed by Cuck** against Kim Soo-hyun continues to challenge the court’s powers of interpretation. Although Cuck** seeks compensation from Kim Soo-hyun, there is, inconveniently, no contract with the actor, and the contract signed with GM does not even mention his name.
This naturally raises a small but troublesome question: in what capacity, exactly, did they sue KSH? The plaintiffs themselves appeared unsure, attempting to distinguish between the defendants with all the confidence - and success—of Shakespeare’s famously confused characters.
(To be continued)
The irony is impressive.
Kim Se-ui, (still) CEO of Garo Sero Research Institute, is not a truth-teller exposing lies. He is a repeat offender, professionally monetizing outrage, misinformation, and—when useful—the personal data of his own followers.
For anyone who still believes Garo Sero is a beacon of truth, here is reality:
After a prior conviction for spreading false information about the sitting president, Kim Se-ui was again convicted, this time for illegally using personal data obtained from his subscribers. Under the false pretext of recruiting an “election fraud monitoring group,” Garo Sero collected names and phone numbers from followers. About a year later, that same data was conveniently reused to promote Kim Se-ui’s own political campaign.
Roughly 400 subscribers received campaign texts saying, “Please trust Kim Se-ui.”
Subscribers who thought they were protecting democracy instead discovered they were part of a mailing list for his ambitions.
Victims stated they were shocked, felt their personal information had been leaked, and suffered psychological distress, fearing further misuse.
The 7th Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Court agreed.
That’s your “hero of the nation.”
Not a misunderstanding.
Not gossip.
An actual criminal conviction for misusing personal data collected for another purpose.
A different kind of Coupang—smaller scale. For now.
Good luck to his subscribers.
https://news.nate.com/view/20251223n14508
https://www.topstarnews.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=15924947
https://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1008294887
https://biz.heraldcorp.com/article/10507924
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/entertainment/20251211/koreas-entertainment-industry-struggles-as-celebrity-scandals-derail-productions
We are now waiting on Kim Soo-hyun's page the other uninvited disguised characters from Act II. Let's see who appears first. Or rather, we know who will appear but let's see with which account...