Trot singer Suk-haeng ordered to pay 30 million won in adultery damages suit
In short
A South Korean court ordered trot singer Suk-haeng to pay 30 million won in damages to a woman over an extramarital relationship, and the ruling became final after neither side appealed. The Suwon District Court's Seongnam branch rejected her argument that she had been deceived about the state of the marriage. She had left television work and suspended activities after the case became public in December last year.
Why it matters
The confirmed judgment closes a civil case that had already cost Suk-haeng her television appearances and a pause in her singing career, and it sets the amount she must pay at 30 million won plus interest. Because the case reached the public through a television programme rather than through the courts, its outcome is likely to be read as a test of how adultery damages claims involving public figures are handled. The documents give no broader indication of significance beyond the singer's own career.
Key facts
- The Suwon District Court's Seongnam branch ordered Suk-haeng to pay 30 million won in damages in the adultery suit. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
- Neither side appealed and the ruling became final; Seoul Economic Daily said it was confirmed on Oct. 3. [ 2 , 3 ]
- The plaintiff, identified as A, had sought 100 million won. [ 2 ]
- The court found Suk-haeng had a relationship with A's husband from around January 2025, including living together. [ 2 , 3 ]
- The court rejected her claim that the marriage had already broken down or that she had been deceived. [ 2 , 3 ]
- Suk-haeng left the television programmes she appeared on and suspended activities after the allegations surfaced. [ 2 , 3 ]
- On Sept. 30 she gave a performance at Arte Seoul Muse Hall in Mokdong, Seoul, saying she wanted to focus on singing. [ 2 ]
Confirmed by several sources
- Suk-haeng was ordered to pay 30 million won in the damages suit. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
- The ruling became final because neither side appealed. [ 2 , 3 ]
- The court found the relationship with A's husband began around January 2025. [ 2 , 3 ]
- The court rejected her argument that she had been deceived or that the marriage was already broken. [ 2 , 3 ]
- Suk-haeng left television programmes after the allegations became public. [ 2 , 3 ]
Still unclear
- The identities of the plaintiff and her husband were not disclosed. Both documents that describe the case refer to the plaintiff only as A and do not name the husband.
- Whether Suk-haeng or her representatives commented after the ruling became final. The documents carry only her December apology and her September performance remarks, with no post-ruling statement.
- The amount the plaintiff originally claimed. The figure of 100 million won appears only in Maeil Business and is not stated by the other documents.