Kim Soo-hyun Wins First Advertiser Lawsuit As Court Rejects $410,000 Refund Claim

A Seoul court found that watch brand MIDO had not established valid grounds to terminate its endorsement contract, allowing the actor’s agency to retain approximately 570 million won.

Kim Soo-hyun’s agency has won the first-instance trial in a major advertising dispute that followed the allegations surrounding the actor in 2025.

The Seoul Eastern District Court’s 13th Civil Division dismissed a lawsuit filed by Swiss watch brand MIDO against Gold Medalist on August 27.

MIDO sought the return of approximately 570 million won, or about $410,000, representing the portion of Kim’s endorsement payment that the company calculated as corresponding to the contract’s remaining period.

The court did not accept the company’s argument that the controversy surrounding Kim provided sufficient grounds to terminate the agreement and reclaim the money.

The ruling means Gold Medalist is not currently required to return the disputed amount. It is a first-instance decision, however, and may still be appealed.

Why Kim Soo-hyun’s First Advertising Lawsuit Victory Matters / News1

How the MIDO Contract Dispute Began

Kim began working as a model for MIDO in 2020, with the two sides renewing their agreement over several years.

In November 2024, the watchmaker reportedly paid a 900 million won endorsement fee and extended the contract for another year.

Months later, allegations involving Kim and the late actress Kim Sae-ron triggered intense public criticism. His advertisements were removed, projects were suspended and multiple companies attempted to end their partnerships with him.

MIDO terminated its contract and demanded approximately 570 million won for the unused portion of the endorsement period.

The company argued that the controversy had damaged Kim’s commercial value as an advertising model. Because celebrity endorsement agreements depend heavily on public image and consumer trust, MIDO maintained that it had grounds to end the contract and recover part of its payment.

Gold Medalist rejected that position.

The agency argued that the controversy originated from allegations made by third parties and that Kim had not committed conduct establishing contractual responsibility on his part.

Why the Court Rejected MIDO’s Claim

According to reports on the ruling, the court determined that the grounds required to terminate the contract had not been established.

That distinction is important.

A company experiencing reputational pressure after controversy involving its model does not automatically mean the model legally breached the endorsement agreement. The court must examine the contract’s actual termination provisions, the conduct attributed to the celebrity and whether that conduct satisfies the agreed conditions.

In this case, MIDO argued that Kim’s diminished commercial value justified termination. Gold Medalist responded that unverified outside allegations could not be treated as misconduct committed by the actor.

The court ultimately dismissed MIDO’s refund claim in its entirety.

The published reports do not yet contain the full written judgment or detailed interpretation of every contractual clause. It would therefore be premature to claim that the ruling created a broad rule applying to all celebrity advertising disputes.

What it establishes in this particular case is that MIDO failed to prove a valid contractual basis for recovering the 570 million won it requested.

Why Kim Soo-hyun’s First Advertising Lawsuit Victory Matters / News1

The Decision Comes After Major Changes in Kim’s Legal Situation

The ruling arrives after significant developments in the investigations connected to the allegations that halted Kim’s career.

Kim Se-ui, the head of YouTube channel Garo Sero Institute, was detained and indicted in June on charges including online defamation, violations of the Sexual Violence Punishment Act and the Anti-Stalking Act.

Prosecutors alleged that Kim Se-ui edited and distorted materials and circulated false claims without conducting basic verification.

Those claims included allegations that Kim Soo-hyun had dated Kim Sae-ron while she was a minor and that financial pressure from the actor’s side contributed directly to her death.

An indictment is not a conviction, and Kim Se-ui has disputed the accusations. His criminal trial remains ongoing.

Separately, police recently decided not to forward allegations against Kim Soo-hyun involving violations of the Child Welfare Act, including alleged child abuse, citing insufficient evidence to establish the offenses.

The MIDO judgment is a civil contract ruling and is legally distinct from both the police decision and the criminal prosecution of Kim Se-ui. Nevertheless, all three developments have changed the legal landscape that existed when advertisers initially cut ties with Kim.

Why This Case Matters for the Remaining Lawsuits

The MIDO case is only one part of a much larger advertising dispute.

Brands including Eider, FromBIO, Classys, Cuckoo Electronics and Trend Maker have reportedly filed claims connected to their endorsement agreements with Kim’s agency. The combined amount sought across the pending cases is estimated to exceed 10 billion won.

That makes the MIDO ruling especially significant as the first reported victory for Gold Medalist among those disputes.

It may provide Kim’s legal team with a useful argument: controversy created by third-party claims does not necessarily establish that the model personally violated a contract.

However, the ruling does not automatically determine the outcome of the other cases.

Each advertiser may have used different contract language, including separate morality clauses, termination conditions and compensation provisions. Some companies may also seek damages on legal theories different from MIDO’s request for a prorated refund.

The other courts will need to examine each agreement and the evidence presented by its parties independently. The MIDO judgment could be persuasive in the broader dispute, but it is not automatically binding on separate lawsuits.

A Legal Win as Kim Soo-hyun Returns to Public Activity

Kim largely withdrew from entertainment activities after the controversy began in March 2025. His projects and endorsements were suspended while his agency pursued legal action.

He recently began reappearing publicly after approximately one year away, including through social media activity and an advertising shoot for a Philippine fashion brand.

That return remains sensitive. Public opinion does not always change at the same pace as court or investigative decisions, and the criminal proceedings connected to the claims have not concluded.

Still, the MIDO ruling represents a concrete legal victory rather than a statement issued solely by Kim’s agency.

For Gold Medalist, it preserves 570 million won and strengthens its position that the controversy did not result from a contractual violation by Kim. For the actor, it removes one of the immediate financial claims attached to the collapse of his endorsement portfolio.

The larger battle is far from over. Several advertiser lawsuits remain pending, MIDO may appeal and the separate criminal proceedings against Kim Se-ui are ongoing.

But after more than a year in which Kim Soo-hyun’s career was defined by allegations and lost contracts, the first completed advertiser ruling has ended in his agency’s favor.