Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

K-Woman Sued for Being Victim of Domestic Violence -- Loses!
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Geckoman



Joined: 07 Jun 2007

PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:31 pm    Post subject: K-Woman Sued for Being Victim of Domestic Violence -- Loses! Reply with quote

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.

Quote:
Firm sues dead actress for being beaten - and wins

The Korea Herald
June 5th, 2009

Advertisement models who failed to maintain appropriate dignity as representatives of the brands or products should compensate for the damages caused to their advertiser, ruled the top court.

The Supreme Court reversed the original ruling and ruled in favor of a construction company that filed a suit against the deceased actress Choi Jin-sil, who committed suicide last October, said court officials yesterday.

However, in August, Choi appeared on television and newspapers with her face full of bruises, allegedly caused by the violence of her then husband and retired baseball player Cho Sung-min.

Choi and Cho, who had been living apart since 2002, divorced soon after the incident.

The advertiser company thus filed a suit against the actress, requesting for 3 billion won as compensation. The amount included the 500 million won in damages as stated in the contract, an additional compensation of 400 million won and the 210 million won in advertising costs spent by the company.

"The purpose of the brand model contract is to use the model's social reputation and images to draw the customers' interest," said the Supreme Court in the ruling. "The model's failure to maintain an adequate image constitutes a breach of the hiring contract."

The concept of the apartment which Choi was supposed to advertise was dignity and happiness, and Choi, as its model, was under the obligation to act accordingly, said the court.


By Bae Hyun-jung [Mod Edited for length per TOS]

([email protected])

2009.06.05

Source: The Korea Herald; June 5th, 2009; http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/NEWKHSITE/data/html_dir/2009/06/05/200906050031.asp
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Enrico Palazzo
Mod Team
Mod Team


Joined: 11 Mar 2008

PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mayorgc



Joined: 19 Oct 2008

PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm wondering if somebody will try to justify or defend this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Zantetsuken



Joined: 21 Dec 2008

PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just like my homey James Brown said... "It's a man's world" and the ajosshi runs the show here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RACETRAITOR



Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea

PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
GoldMember



Joined: 24 Oct 2006

PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Goku



Joined: 10 Dec 2008

PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
madoka



Joined: 27 Mar 2008

PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
antoniothegreat



Joined: 28 Aug 2005
Location: Yangpyeong

PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Goku wrote:
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.


more often, these laws are made to protect consumers, like against old debts and credit cards, things like that. the important crimes, like murder and rape, have no statute of limitations. you can be tried for murder 100 years after it occurs.

on the other hand, writing a bad check, that often goes away in 7 years. the point is to avoid a basic system like in korea of slavery or indentured servitute. the law protects someone from writing a bad check on accident, then losing their job, and 20 years later, the interest and fees add up to 100,000 dollars. That is the point of those laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Unposter



Joined: 04 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Goku



Joined: 10 Dec 2008

PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

antoniothegreat wrote:


more often, these laws are made to protect consumers, like against old debts and credit cards, things like that. the important crimes, like murder and rape, have no statute of limitations. you can be tried for murder 100 years after it occurs.

on the other hand, writing a bad check, that often goes away in 7 years. the point is to avoid a basic system like in korea of slavery or indentured servitute. the law protects someone from writing a bad check on accident, then losing their job, and 20 years later, the interest and fees add up to 100,000 dollars. That is the point of those laws.


Oh I know, I was just pointing out that similar laws which create what some percieve as "immoral" rulings exist in America. Stupid was actually a poor choice of words as the reasons you mentioned. Don't worry, I'm aware all laws have underlying important premises in upholding order.

Every law has a reason. Such as like you said double jeporady is to prevent someone from being tried and tried and tried again for the same crime. If we allowed this to happen in our system then it's subject to the government abusing and harassing people infinitely for crimes they never commited. There are plethora of rules for Double Jeporady, but we also see cases where later it was found that the person was guilty but can't be tried due to double jeporady.

The law is never perfect, and people need to understand that no court system will ever be absolute or fair in verdicts.

We can't even agree what is moral and what is immoral. Morality is the premise that the law tries to build itself around but even morality is a fluffy foundation.

There is no perfect law system, just like there are no perfect governments. Each provides its sets of benefits and negatives and this is one case such that Korean law system is "failing".

Although, I have to agree to this ruling.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Goku



Joined: 10 Dec 2008

PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unposter wrote:
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!


Keep in mind that the law doesn't just need to uphold what happend in the past, but more importantly they consider what to prevent in the future.

Let's pretend the judge that "this case is ridiculous, throw it out the window".

What happens next is that contract law is broken, and all contract endorsements will become meaningless.

And then 3 weeks later Son Dam bi was found to planting explosives under children's school box lunches? All of a sudden their company is called the terrorist soju, and they go bankrupt. The company wants to sue Son Dam Bi for ruining their soju. But they can't, because of the case of Choi Jin Shil, companies can't sue for defamation of their product.

After that absolutely NO company will consider endorsing a celebrity because the risk is too great. If a celebrity screws up their image they are held liable, not the celebrity. No more endorsements, no more deals. Celebrites lose money. Companies lose money. People buy less.. etc etc..

Not to mention it completly breaks the meaning of contracts. Any contract ever made can be challenged in a court of law. There would be bloody chaos.

American corporate contract law stipulates that if a company has promised a good at a certain time, at a certain place, it is their full responsibility it shows up on time. If it doesn't make it on time... maybe there was a hurricane, or maybe the truck driver's wife has a baby, is completely irrelevant. We don't make exceptions.

God, I should so be a lawyer... can I get an amen?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
diver



Joined: 16 Jun 2003

PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Goku wrote:
Unposter wrote:
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!


Keep in mind that the law doesn't just need to uphold what happend in the past, but more importantly they consider what to prevent in the future.

Let's pretend the judge that "this case is ridiculous, throw it out the window".

What happens next is that contract law is broken, and all contract endorsements will become meaningless.

And then 3 weeks later Son Dam bi was found to planting explosives under children's school box lunches? All of a sudden their company is called the terrorist soju, and they go bankrupt. The company wants to sue Son Dam Bi for ruining their soju. But they can't, because of the case of Choi Jin Shil, companies can't sue for defamation of their product.

After that absolutely NO company will consider endorsing a celebrity because the risk is too great. If a celebrity screws up their image they are held liable, not the celebrity. No more endorsements, no more deals. Celebrites lose money. Companies lose money. People buy less.. etc etc..

Not to mention it completly breaks the meaning of contracts. Any contract ever made can be challenged in a court of law. There would be bloody chaos.

American corporate contract law stipulates that if a company has promised a good at a certain time, at a certain place, it is their full responsibility it shows up on time. If it doesn't make it on time... maybe there was a hurricane, or maybe the truck driver's wife has a baby, is completely irrelevant. We don't make exceptions.

God, I should so be a lawyer... can I get an amen?


Not with that analogy you shouldn't be.

Slippery slope much?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Benicio



Joined: 25 May 2006
Location: Down South- where it's hot & wet

PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
God, I should so be a lawyer... can I get an amen?


No!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Goku



Joined: 10 Dec 2008

PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

diver wrote:


Not with that analogy you shouldn't be.

Slippery slope much?


law states "A"

a court rule "A can be broken"

people can break "A"

Not so much a slippery slope, arguably, companies will stop endorsing is a stretch, but not a big one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 1 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International