Actress Han Ye Seul wins second trial in lawsuit over unpaid 600 million won advertising model fee

Actress Han Ye Seul's management office won a lawsuit against the management company of health food brand "Life Promise" for not paying her advertising modeling fees.
Seoul High Court Civil Division 37-3 (Judges Son Eon-ju, RUI (Lee Seung Chul), and Min Jeong-seok) held a press conference at Han Ye Seul's management office on the 21st.
Entertainment has upheld a partial ruling in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit against Next Player for modeling fees, which required the defendant to pay the plaintiff 660 million won (approximately 66 million yen).
Han Ye Seul and management office Nopoong Entertainment signed an exclusive model advertising contract with Next Player's health food brand "Life Promise" in April 2022.
The contract called for a total of 22 appearances, including four video shoots and four print shoots, and paid him a total of 1.43 billion won (approximately 140 million yen) in two installments of 715 million won each.
In particular, if any advertisement featuring Han Ye Seul was used even once, the full modeling fee would be paid.
However, the next player will receive the first model fee of 715 million yen in May-June 2022.
In March of the following year, he paid 55 million won (approx. 5.5 million yen) as part of his second modeling fee, totaling 770 million won (approx. 77 million yen).
The agency filed a lawsuit demanding the full payment of her modeling fees. Next Player claims that the management office has not cooperated as a model and has shown its intention to terminate the contract, and therefore is not required to pay her secondary modeling fees.
However, in the first instance, the court ruled that Han Ye Seul's side had requested revisions to the advertisement draft and concept, and that the video shoot schedule had been postponed due to her overseas stay.
The court ruled that "there is not enough evidence that he did not cooperate with the filming," and that "there is not enough evidence that he expressed an intention to terminate the contract." The Next Player side appealed the ruling of the first instance, but the second instance also ruled that the first instance
The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the ruling was just.