Kim Soo Hyun wins court case as Swiss watch brand Mido loses bid to reclaim 570 million KRW fee

South Korean actor Kim Soo Hyun has prevailed in a civil lawsuit brought by Swiss watchmaker Mido, which had sought the return of a substantial portion of his advertising fee. On 27 August the 13th Civil Division of the Seoul Eastern District Court dismissed in full the brand’s claim against the actor’s agency, Gold Medalist, for approximately 570 million KRW (around 412,637 USD). The ruling marks the first judicial decision among several similar disputes initiated by former commercial partners and is expected to influence the outcome of remaining cases.

Mido had argued that Kim’s commercial value was severely damaged by allegations circulated by the YouTube channel HoverLab, also known as the Garosero Research Institute. According to the company, those claims justified the termination of the endorsement contract and entitled the brand to recover part of the fee already paid. Gold Medalist rejected the premise, insisting that the HoverLab allegations were false and that the contract could not be treated as terminated because of any wrongdoing on the actor’s part. The agency maintained that assertions concerning an alleged relationship between Kim and the late actress Kim Sae Ron while she was still a minor were fabricated and bore no connection to misconduct by the actor himself. The court ultimately accepted the defence position and rejected Mido’s demands in their entirety.

Legal representatives welcome the decision

Attorney Bang Sung Hoon of LKB & Partners, speaking to Dispatch, characterised the brand’s actions as a unilateral withdrawal of advertising following the emergence of false allegations. He noted that the court had determined the termination of the model contract was not attributable to any fault on Kim Soo Hyun’s part. Bang added that the decision was likely to carry significant weight in the other pending disputes. Those cases involve comparable requests for the return of advertising fees or the payment of penalties and include actions linked to Cuckoo Electronics, Classys, Dinto, Eider and FromBIO.

The Mido contract itself dated back several years. The watch brand first appointed Kim as a model in 2020. In November 2024 it paid 900 million KRW (approximately 651,494 USD) to extend the arrangement for a further year. After the HoverLab allegations surfaced, Mido informed Gold Medalist that it was ending the relationship and subsequently filed suit to recover the unused portion of the fee. The court’s rejection of that claim removes the immediate financial threat posed by this particular action and supplies a judicial finding that the actor was not responsible for the contract’s collapse.

Background to the allegations

The commercial fallout originated in claims broadcast by HoverLab. In May, police concluded that those allegations were false. Investigators determined that the assertion Kim Soo Hyun had been involved in a relationship with Kim Sae Ron while she was a minor was untrue. In June, Kim Se Eui, the head of HoverLab, was indicted and placed in detention on charges that included defamation. The police findings undercut the factual foundation on which Mido and other brands had relied when deciding to distance themselves from the actor.

Kim has also cleared a separate legal hurdle. Last month police decided not to forward him for prosecution in connection with alleged violations of the Child Welfare Act. The investigation had examined claims that he sexually abused Kim Sae Ron during a period when she was under the age of 18. Officers ultimately concluded there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations, closing that line of inquiry without charges.

Implications for remaining cases

Because the Mido judgment is the first to address the core question of whether the HoverLab claims constituted legitimate grounds for terminating endorsement deals, it is being watched closely by the other companies still in litigation. Each of those disputes turns on similar arguments about damaged reputation and contractual consequences. A court finding that the underlying allegations were false and that the actor bore no fault supplies persuasive authority for Gold Medalist’s defence in the remaining actions. While every case will be decided on its own evidence and contractual language, the Seoul Eastern District Court’s reasoning offers a clear judicial benchmark.

For Kim Soo Hyun the ruling provides a measure of vindication after a period of intense public and commercial pressure. Endorsement contracts represent a significant share of many Korean actors’ income, and the abrupt withdrawal of multiple campaigns created both financial and reputational strain. The court’s decision does not automatically restore those partnerships, yet it establishes that the terminations cannot be laid at the actor’s door on the basis of the HoverLab material.

Continuing legal landscape

The civil victory does not erase the broader sequence of events that followed the initial YouTube broadcasts. Brands acted rapidly to protect their images, police conducted lengthy investigations, and the actor’s agency was obliged to fight on multiple legal fronts simultaneously. The indictment of the HoverLab principal and the police decision not to pursue Child Welfare Act charges against Kim have progressively weakened the original accusations. The Mido judgment adds a civil-court determination that aligns with those earlier investigative conclusions.

Further rulings in the outstanding commercial cases will clarify how widely the same logic will be applied. For the moment, the dismissal of Mido’s claim stands as a concrete legal result: the Swiss brand is not entitled to reclaim the disputed advertising fee, and the court has accepted that the contract ended for reasons unrelated to any proven misconduct by the actor. In an industry where perception can trigger immediate financial consequences, the judgment supplies a rare moment of judicial clarity amid a complex and highly publicised dispute.