Court Raises Serious Doubts Over Cuckoo’s Lawsuit Against Kim Soo-hyun
At the second hearing of the advertising contract lawsuit between Cuckoo Electronics and actor Kim Soo-hyun, the court delivered a message that was both blunt and damaging to the plaintiff’s case:
Cuckoo has yet to correct its own fundamental legal flaws.
According to the court, the lawsuit is not faltering due to hidden facts or unresolved controversies surrounding the actor’s private life, but rather because Cuckoo has failed to meet its legal burden of proof.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
No Clear Contract, No Valid Termination
The court pointed out several critical weaknesses in Cuckoo’s claim:
-
No clear contractual structure
-
No legally valid termination of the contract
-
No solid legal basis to single out Kim Soo-hyun for damages
Most notably, the court emphasized that a so-called “private life controversy” does not automatically justify contract termination. Under contract law, termination is only valid if the plaintiff can prove explicit contractual grounds or fault directly attributable to the defendant. At this stage, the court stated that neither has been established.
A Structurally Flawed Malaysian Contract
One of the most damaging issues raised concerns the Malaysian advertising contract itself.
The court highlighted that Kim Soo-hyun is not even listed as a contracting party in the agreement. Despite this, Cuckoo is attempting to hold him personally liable for damages. The judges openly questioned how a non-party to a contract could suddenly be treated as a debtor without clear and explicit contractual language allowing such liability.
This structural defect, the court suggested, significantly undermines Cuckoo’s position.
Termination Notice Deemed Legally Weak
Cuckoo’s March 24 termination letter was also scrutinized — and found wanting.
The court stated that vague expressions such as “the relationship can no longer be maintained” do not constitute a legally valid termination notice. Even more problematic, the letter failed to specify a clear termination date, leaving the legal status of the contract ambiguous.
The court warned that if this ambiguity persists, it may be forced to intervene and determine damages on its own authority — an outcome generally unfavorable to plaintiffs.
Allegations Are Not Legal Facts
In a key remark, the court underscored a fundamental legal principle:
allegations are not facts, and even facts only matter if they legally trigger specific contract clauses.
Without a valid contractual mechanism linking the alleged controversy to termination or damages, the claims cannot stand on speculation alone.
