Bye UNIQLO. Bye Zara. ๐ญ
GUYS!!! If naghahanap kayo ng LOCAL MEN'S clothing shops on shopee that are giving UNIQLO, H&M, and COS vibes. Lapag ko na lang dito ๐ฎโ๐จ
What Happened in Court Today Between Dinto and Kim Soo-hyun.
Todayโs court session between Cosmetics Brand A (Dinto) and Kim Soo-hyun marked their first major legal confrontation, revealing sharp disagreements over contract termination, โmorality clauses,โ and the responsibility of brands when controversies are driven by speculation rather than facts.
At the center of the dispute is whether Dinto had the legal right to unilaterally terminate Kim Soo-hyunโs advertising contract based on the so-called โprivate life controversyโ fueled by the late Kim Sae-ronโs family and YouTube channels. Company A argued that the controversy violated the โdignity clauseโ and severely damaged their brand image. They even escalated their compensation demand dramatically,from 500 million KRW to 2.86 billion KRW,claiming consumer trust had collapsed.
Dinto insisted that Kim Soo-hyunโs clarification that he began dating Kim Sae-ron only after both were adults could โstill be interpreted negatively,โ attempting to frame perception itself as a violation. Their argument was based not on proven wrongdoing, but on public assumption, rumours, and brand worry.
However, Kim Soo-hyunโs legal team responded firmly and decisively.
They drew a clear line:
There was no underage dating.
There was no relationship with a minor at any time.
The initial denial of their relationship happened YEARS before the contract and has no connection to the dignity clause.
The contract cannot be terminated based on unverified rumors or on social panic created by third parties.
They reiterated that the โsocial controversy clauseโ in advertising contracts only applies when actual misconduct is proven,and in this case, no crime, violation, or harmful act has ever been confirmed.
Adding to this, Kim Soo-hyun has already filed a 12 billion KRW lawsuit against Kim Sae-ronโs family and the YouTube channels responsible for fabricating narratives. This further shows that the origin of the controversy was malicious third-party defamation, not any action from Kim Soo-hyun himself.
The case has now attracted deep industry interest. This trial may define future advertising standards in Korea specifically whether brands can destroy a celebrityโs contract simply because of โimage concernsโ rather than actual legal violations. The courtโs final ruling could reshape how morality clauses are used across the entire advertising world.
The next hearing is scheduled for March 13, 2026, making todayโs session the starting point of a long legal battle with enormous implications.
๐ Source:
https://t.co/SpZCAj8bKZ
#WeStandWithKimSooHyun
FALSE CLAIMS COLLAPSE IN COURT
#DintoStopTheDefamation