Civil Suit Between Once Picture And Suzy Holds Second Pleading

Lawyers for Suzy and Once Picture studio met for the second time to plead their case at the Seoul Southern District Courts.

The situation involving the two sides stems from when YouTuber Yang Ye Won revealed that three years ago, she had been forced to take revealing photos during a photo shoot and was also sexually harassed by the owner of the studio. A government petition to support an official investigation was launched, which included the name Once Picture.

Suzy signed the petition and shared it through her personal Instagram account. Once Picture stated, We opened our studio after newly acquiring it in January 2016, and the name and head of the studio are not the same ones involved in the case.” Suzy apologized to the studio, but the studio filed a civil suit of compensation for damages against Suzy, stating they had undergone severe damages because of her actions.

During the pleading, Suzy’s lawyers stated, “We find it difficult to accept that compensation should be paid. Suzy’s post on her social media account became as big as it did because it spread through the media and social media. This is not an issue that can be resolved by asking a few people to pay monetary compensation.”

They also stated, “This could become a precedent to limit the freedom of speech of celebrities. Suzy merely expressed that she agrees with the petition. Though public figures must be more aware of their words and actions due to the nature of their jobs, we find it difficult to accept the plaintiff’s assertion that celebrities must understand all facts of a situation before expressing their opinion because they are a celebrity. Also, the plaintiff claims that Suzy never apologized for the incident, but contact was made after the incident.”

Once Picture’s side argued, “We were only contacted once through her manager. We have not seen any proactive steps made by Suzy’s side to resolve this situation.”

The civil suit between Once Picture and Suzy is expected to continue as the two sides did not reach an agreement in the case.

Source (1) (2)