21/11/2025
Shameless Dinto why you still using Kim Soo Hyun photos if your brand image was harmed because of him??😡😡
[NEWS] LKB Law Firm: “There are no confirmed facts. Since there is no violation of the obligation to maintain social dignity, the contract cannot be terminated. That is our basic position.”
Dinto and Kim Soohyun’s side openly confronted each other in court over whether he violated the “morality clause” in his contract in connection with the controversy involving the late Kim Saeron. The key issue in the first hearing was whether a model contract can be terminated based only on public controversy, without any confirmed wrongdoing.
At the first hearing held on the morning of the 21st at the Seoul Central District Court’s Civil Division 22, the main questions were whether a simple “image risk” tied to a private life controversy is enough to justify ending a contract, and how far a celebrity’s morality clause can legally extend.
Dinto argued that Kim Soohyun’s private life controversy made it practically impossible to run their advertising campaign. They raised their claim from the original 500 million won to 2.86 billion won, saying the brand’s image was damaged and that this amounted to a violation of the contract’s morality clause. They specifically pointed to the fact that Kim Soohyun denied dating Kim Saeron before her death, then later said they dated after she became an adult.
Dinto’s lawyer argued that “saying the relationship began when she became an adult can still be interpreted as implying there was a connection from when she was a minor,” and that this would be seen as violating the duty to maintain dignity, given consumer perception and brand trust. They also said, “Rumors that are not confirmed are not considered a public scandal, but issues confirmed as facts can be,” insisting the contract termination was justified.
Kim Soohyun’s side pushed back, saying the underlying allegation that he dated a minor was baseless. They said, “The relationship began after Kim Saeron entered university, so there was no relationship with a minor,” and argued that “the initial denial happened before the contract was signed, so it has nothing to do with the morality clause.” They added that the “public scandal” clause only applies when there is a specific, confirmed violation, which they say this case does not meet.
One of the most important issues in this case is whether a brand can end a contract based purely on controversy, without any confirmed crime or judgment.
Many brands commonly end contracts simply due to fear of image damage, but in this case Kim Soohyun strongly denies the allegations and has even filed a 12 billion won lawsuit against the bereaved family and a YouTube channel, making the nature of the controversy unclear.
Another major question is whether the “loss of brand trust” claimed by Dinto can be legally recognized as actual damages. Dinto argues that their brand image was harmed, but Kim Soohyun’s side counters that “the contract did not end due to any fault of the actor, so he is not responsible for damages.” In the advertising industry, proving that brand image damage directly caused sales loss or measurable harm is one of the most difficult areas.
This case also touches on the long-debated scope of morality clauses in celebrity advertising contracts. These clauses allow brands to end a contract for social scandal, private life issues, or criminal involvement, but the standards for applying them are vague and broad. Depending on how the court rules, this case may end up redefining the standard for the entire advertising industry.
The outcome is expected to set an important benchmark for how a celebrity’s private life controversy can translate into legal and advertising-related consequences. It may also help resolve the long-standing issue of contract termination standards being too vague. The next hearing is scheduled for March 13, 2026. Depending on the ruling, model contracts and risk management practices across the advertising industry may undergo significant changes.
#김수현
![Shameless Dinto why you still using Kim Soo Hyun photos if your brand image was harmed because of him??😡😡[NEWS] LKB Law ...](https://img4.medioq.com/834/523/122193765488345230.jpg)
