By Here is a perfect example of the Korean justice system at work:
Models who failed to maintain appropriate dignity as representatives of the products they represent should compensate for the damages caused to their advertiser, the top court ruled.
The Supreme Court reversed the original ruling and ruled in favor of a construction company that filed a suit against the deceased actress Choi Jin-sil, who committed suicide last October.
The company, upon hiring the top actress as their representing model in March 2004, concluded a contract stating Choi’s duties to pay back 500 million won ($399,361), should she depreciate the company’s social reputation.
However, in August, Choi appeared on television and newspapers with her face full of bruises, allegedly caused by the violence of her then husband and retired baseball player Cho Sung-min. [Korea Pop Wars via Brian in Jelloanam-do]
You can guess what happened next, yes the courts sided with the advertiser and have ordered the Choi family to pay back the money because she gotten beaten by her husband thus ruining her image. Unbelievable, but nothing new in the Korean court system.
3:12 am on June 7th, 2009 1
Words fail me. I hope they (the construction company and the Korean courts) face some serious public shaming over this. It’s disgraceful.
If the company wants to recoup some cash, how about suing her worthless ex-husband.
Reply
3:16 am on June 7th, 2009 2
Is this for real? JFC.
Reply
4:30 am on June 7th, 2009 3
Let’s blame the Korean legal system. Let’s blame everyone else… except those who are actually responsible.
I can understand how all the small-thinking little people, who only know what Oprah tells them, would express outrage at this.
However, for a business owner, paying a lot of money for a clearly defined service backed up by a legal contract, a lawsuit is the correct action when the other party violates the terms of that contract.
Her situation is unfortunate… but it is her responsibility to manage her personal life in accordance with her professional life. If she can’t avoid conflict with her husband, she and her management team still must protect her image to keep it valuable and marketable.
By not doing so, they reduced her value and, as per the contract, the company was entitled to their money back.
She was not “sued for getting beaten”. She was sued because she sold a product with a certain value and then she knowingly reduced the value of that product.
Simple.
Reply
5:46 am on June 7th, 2009 4
LOL. This has nothing to do with “getting sued for getting beaten by her husband”, as you guys try to pass it off as. What happened to her was unfortunate, but a contract is a contract.If she didn’t show up for publicity shootings and advertisements, that is a breach of contract, no matter what the personal problems and reasons are.
Reply
6:19 am on June 7th, 2009 5
She should have to pay back the 500,000,000 won back- fine, but the company is saying it is entitled to 3,000,000,000 won. That’s crazy in trying to say it should get back PRODUCTION costs! This is a bad precedent, like dragging on with the Hebei Spirit or the Lone Star cases.
Reply
6:31 am on June 7th, 2009 6
Wow.
Tom and Chicken what planet are you from? I forgot, Korea.
You can not buy a person.
You can not punish a person for being violated.
Except in Korea.
Even if it’s legally possible, it’s morally reprehensible. This would not happen in America, or any European country. I love Korea, but this sort of action not only tarnishes Korea’s “brand image” but it sets it back decades, if not centuries.
However, let’s look at some recent legal precedent. you will see that it’s not legally plausible.
Noh’s death. The case was dropped.
She’s a woman, and a victim. He’s a man, and not.
He’s released; she isn’t.
Why?
We all know. You don’t.
Why?
Let’s not continue this chain of logic – I’d hate for you to cry.
Reply
9:16 am on June 7th, 2009 7
John,
This is what happens when emotion overpowers reason…
…the hallmark of a generation raised on Oprah, global villages, sensitivity training and a culture of excuse-making victimhood that demonizes any form of personal responsibility for the lowest of career offenders… yet, strangely, has no problem “getting tough” on the obviously innocent who stumble into some bazaar zero-tolerance nightmare.
I don’t get it, myself… but… moving on and back to the topic at hand.
So… is this lawsuit a crappy deal for her (estate)? Sure.
But this is not an issue of domestic violence. As I understand it, blogosphere hype aside, this is an issue of contract law.
Let’s look at some of your statements.
“You can not (sic) buy a person.”
The entire idea of a celebrity endorcement is based on “buying a person”… or, more correctly, buying the image of that person.
This is why they have highly-paid teams of publicists, managers and image consultants. There is a return on investment for selling yourself.
And companies protect their investment with, among other things, a “moral clause” to insure the celebrity’s private life does not contradict the corporate image they are trying to project.
If the contract stated that she would perform certain duties or maintain a certain image and she failed to, it seems a step in the right direction that the Korean legal system is enforcing contracts.
Off the top of my head, Charlize Theron, Jessica Simpson and Melanie Griffith have been sued for violating terms in their contracts. Others, such as Michael Jackson and Kate Moss, have been dropped (and maybe sued as well) for violating the morality clause.
Remember, the domestic violence issue is a separate and personal/criminal issue and not related to the agreement between the actress and the company.
“You can not (sic) punish a person for being violated.”
Nobody is punishing her for being violated. She is being “punished” for not upholding her end of the contract. How this happened is not the concern of the company… as they have no control over who she is married to, who she stays with, who she runs her mouth off to after they have had 7 bottles of soju, whatever.
They pay for her image which is then linked to their company image. She damaged her image (intentionally by going public) which damaged the company image and violated her contract.
I’m sorry for her… but I’m certainly not going to advocate voiding legitmate contracts or skirting reasonable laws just because it’s emotionally gratifying.
Now on to the domestic violence issue.
If you want to complain about something, complain about the Korean treatment of domestic violence and sexual assault victims… not contract enforcement.
I would certainly support her estate suing him for a portion of the damages… although, as a judge, I would find she had some percentage of blame for going public.
(I know I will get flack for saying that she shouldn’t have gone public… I’ll address that when it comes for those first-level thinkers who don’t know where this is going.)
“Let’s not continue this chain of logic – I’d hate for you to cry.”
Oh, no… let’s do! Sometimes a girl needs a good cry.
Reply
10:14 am on June 7th, 2009 8
It’s dispicable how GI Korea titles this case as:
“Choi Jin-sil loses Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars For Being Beaten By Her Husband”
Now reading just the title, it makes it sound like she was sued and lost because she was beaten by her husband.
And ROK Drop is always complainging about how Korean media exaggerates and distorts news.
Look at what he’s doinig. 
Now let’s look at the facts, shall we?
1) The contract dispute between Choi and the company was well before her suicide. This case was on-going in courts before she committed suicide.
2) She did not fill her part of the obligations to the company in question (for whatever reasons, it could be due to domestic violence, emotional problems, or whatever.. which the company does not care). Missing days of shots, failing to appear in public, failing to endorse, missing appointments, overall doing crap all for what she was paid to do. Her personal problems that prevented her from carrying out the duties, does not concern the company. If I get fired and sued because I didn’t do my job that I was contracted out to do, then it’s not the problem of the company who hired me. Just because I have a drug problem, my husband beat me, I have cancer, my mother died, and my dog died, doesn’t mean that the company who hired me doesn’t expect me to live up to the spirit of the contract.
This wouldn’t happen in America? Land where dry cleaners get sued and ruined because they lose a pair of cheap pants and because they’re Asians. Hypocrisy anyone? Yeah right..
There are no injustices in America, only in Korea. 
Reply
12:35 pm on June 7th, 2009 9
This is a legal mater.
We should listen the opinion of a lawyer.
Reply
1:01 pm on June 7th, 2009 10
GI, I think Tom is right on this one.
Dr. Yu… we eagerly await your legal opinion.
Reply
5:15 pm on June 7th, 2009 11
Chickenhead,
When I said that we should listen from a lawyer I meant a lawyer with practice in Korean law.
Anyway, since you ask my opinion I would say that I think Tom is right, because the actress was probably sued because of breach of contract, not because she got beaten by her husband.
Marketing contract with celebrities stipulates that celebrities must look always pretty and gracious before the cameras, avoiding to be linked to scandals and socially disturbing events.
Well, she did it, and the fact that she got beaten by her husband is just a detail under the stipulation of the contract.
Do you remember Michael Phelps smoking marijuana? That’s the same case, only he is still alive, while the actress is dead now.
Now, could I charge you my legal fees? Hahaha !!!
Reply
9:09 pm on June 7th, 2009 12
Korean law
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Reply
3:09 am on June 9th, 2009 13
I also found this to be a jaw-dropper but wasn’t actually surprised to see Chickenhead use it to piss on everybody (well, the expat losers and the crappy society they come from) and put them down.
Tom’s points were thought provoking: specifically “she didn’t show up for publicity shootings and advertisements”
That I can understand if it’s true. The article I read about the case didn’t mention it.
The article I read said that the clause in her contract was that, at least in the English translation, if she damaged the company’s image “through a fault of her own” she was liable for damages.
I can’t think of too many people besides Chickenhead and a few others who get some kind of glee in pissing on other expats who’d make the case her getting the shit kick out of her by her husband is a “fault of her own”.
Reply