Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Geckoman]

A Korean actress is sued for being the victim of domestic violence and loses!

Another outrageous ruling from Korea�s judicial system!

A Korean actress, Choi Jin-sil, was sued for being the victim of domestic violence and has lost the case.

The press had shown her with her face full of bruises that were caused by her then husband, Cho Sung-min, a retired baseball player.

So a company that had hired her before hand as their representative model sued her claiming that those images hurt the company's reputation!

A lower court had ruled in her favor but the Korean Supreme Court has overturned that earlier ruling and has ruled in favor of the company. Outrageous!

Since Choi Jin-sil had recently committed suicide the defendant was her mother. For all we know, her suicide could have been caused from the trauma of the domestic violence.

The company should of sued the wife-beater. But they sued the victim and won!

Furthemore, why would the company's reputation be hurt because their representative model was the victim of domestic violence?

Where is the logic? Where is the justice?

South Korea�s judicial system is a total joke! Idiotic rulings happen so often.

Outrageous!

To see the article go to http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/NEWKHSITE/data/html_dir/2009/06/05/200906050031.asp or see below.

[Enrico Palazzo]

As someone who deals with rulings, I would say this is strange, and I hope another judge overturns it. Anyway, that's not what I am posting this post. As Trollbait mentioned, can you not post the whole article?
The TOS limit says 300 words, but just don't go over the 300-400 range.
Let the people go to the newspaper's URL and read the paper and all.

Grazie,

Signor Enrico Palazzo

[mayorgc]

I'm wondering if somebody will try to justify or defend this.

[Zantetsuken]

Just like my homey James Brown said... "It's a man's world" and the ajosshi runs the show here.

[RACETRAITOR]

This whole thing had been going on for a long time. Both her and her ex-husband were trying to smear each other in the media, and the media was going right along with it.

Before anyone goes and blames the ex-husband for her suicide, there were a lot more things at play when she committed suicide. He clearly is scum though.

It would be more logical if the company sued him for actually causing the bruises. It would also even be more logical if the company sued her estate for committing suicide, which is surely worse PR than domestic abuse (though still scummy).

[GoldMember]

So now we have some English Teachers who are legal experts and can determine what is a smart or stupid legal decision.
Sure on the face of it, it appears unjust but the issue is not what is fair but what the contract says. The woman signed a bad contract. Just like English teachers who also sign bad contracts (read them carefully)
As for sueing the husband, well the contract was not with him.
What may well happen is the company sues the womans estate and the estate then sues the husband for loses incured because of his assault.

Kind like when you get rear ended by a bus and get pushed into the car in front of you. The guy in front doesn't sue the bus driver, he sues you, you then you sue the bus driver.

[Goku]

Remember, Korean law deals more with the ends than the means. Which makes this case seem like an immoral ruling.

The result, she ruined the advertising campain by "not being a model person". Whether or not it was her fault, or whether or not it could be helped is irrelevant.

Fact is, the company supposedly lost money from an actress who is supposed to advertise their product by being a shinning example of society. The fact that she was beaten domestically and commited suicide doesn't bode well if you want to endorse your product.

If my contract says I must deliver A product to microsoft at 12:00. It doesn't matter if it was because of a hurricane or because of a natural disaster. The duty is on me to deliever what I promised. There are no excuses. That's the law.

You also have to take into account that the contract is binding. And the law must uphold the law, regardless of how immoral the justification seems.

American law is just as guilty of stupid laws that don't make any moral sense. and there are plenty of cases to support it and things like double jeopardy is proof of that. Why is it a man not convicted within 30 years of his crime can't be prosecuted? The law and morals don't always coincide

I can agree with you OP. This is a screwed up case where morals and the right thing don't match the law. The problem is here is TOO much logic. Not that there is no logic OP. The fact that we are using emotions and sympathy to judge this makes the courts decesion look heartless.

[madoka]

The OP misconstrued the court decision. It was not against the wife for being a "victim of domestic violence." It was for violating her contractual obligations. AFAIK, it is the same decision an American court would make. You get a judgment against the wife for violating the contract and then the wife's estate can go after the husband for the damages he caused. It's just the way the western justice system is designed to work.

[antoniothegreat]

[Unposter]

In the West, or at least in America, you can sue for anything but good luck getting a judge to hear the case or a jury to rule in your favor. I know this was an appeals court but you would need to show evidence of wrong doing in the lower court to over-rule the verdict.

Unless, the contract specifically stated that you would refrain from being hit or unless the company could prove that she willing engaged in behavior to damage the reputation of the company, I just can't believe a U.S. court would have ruled similarily. And, if it did, I would be just as outraged at that decision as I am with this.

This is a horrible ruling!

[Goku]

[Goku]

[diver]

[Benicio]

[Goku]