Kim Hyun Joong and Choi once again tried and failed to reach an agreement.
Choi's legal rep argued, "There are four causes for our damages suit: the pregnancy, assault, and miscarriage, which all occurred around May of 2014; [Kim Hyun Joong's] duty to pay the penalty; false charges of fraud and blackmail which were acquitted; and compensation for inflicting emotional distress."
Kim Hyun Joong's legal rep rebutted, "Choi's damages suit is without sound basis. We demand the restoration of 600 million KRW (~ $520,000 USD) for the damages suffered from [Choi's] blackmail. We demand the 600 million KRW as [Choi] divulged [Kim Hyun Joong's] assualt when she had agreed not to. Because he is a celebrity, my client suffered a considerable amount of damage due to articles published in the media."
SEE ALSO: Rookie girl group member who accused agency CEO of sexual harassment speculated to be MADEIN's Gaeun
Choi's lawyer, upon hearing Kim Hyun Joong's lawyer's argument that everything Choi claims about the pregnancy, assault, and miscarriage are fabricated, stated, "That's an overstatement. It's a shame that [Kim Hyun Joong] is using the X-ray Choi received to disprove her pregnancy. Kim Hyun Joong's lawyer is trying, through numerous press releases and interviews, to subject Choi to national censure. He tells her that he won't 'give her a single penny' even with a major label backing him and even though he will spend millions for a law firm. This serves to destroy Choi's reputation and character."
Kim Hyun Joong's lawyer argued back, "Choi only makes statements on the circumstance and fails to provide any detailed, scientific proof. Because the defendant is celebrity, he only suffers damages the more he appears in the media. We only took part in interviews because we felt pressured by the plaintiff. My client's reputation was directly affected because of the false claims that [Choi] suffered a miscarriage for her second pregnancy from assault and that she lived with him. Further, [Kim Hyun Joong's] private life was infringed upon due to the exposure of text messages between him and the plaintiff."
SHARE
Log in to comment