“Responsibility for the affair was acknowledged, so should I pay more?”… Hong Seo-beom’s ex-daughter-in-law went all the way to the Supreme Court but could not overturn the decision

on
She won the lawsuit. However, claiming that as the victim, I am suffering more loss, she took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. Yet, the outcome remained unchanged.The legal battle that spanned approximately two years between A, who was in a de facto marital relationship with the son of singers Hong Seo-beom and Jo Gap-kyung, has come to an end. As the Supreme Court rejected As appeal, the appellate courts ruling ordering A to pay 30 million won in alimony and 800,000 won per month in child support to the son was finalized.The dispute between the two began in 2024. A claimed that while maintaining a de facto marital relationship with B, the relationship broke down after B engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a coworker shortly after she became pregnant and subsequently left the house.The first-instance court ruled that B was at fault for the breakdown of the de facto marital relationship. It ordered B to pay A 30 million won in alimony and bear the burden of 800,000 won per month in child support.However, A, who had won the case, appealed. She believed that the alimony and child support determined by the court were insufficient compared to the damages she had suffered. Consequently, the First Family Division of the Daejeon Family Court, handling the appeal, issued a partial victory ruling for the plaintiff, Ms. A, on June 25.Afterward, Ms. A expressed strong dissatisfaction. She lamented, Even if I receive alimony, I have to pay more because of the money given under the pretext of investment, and the child support remains the same, asking, Why must I, the victim, suffer more damage and live at a loss? Ultimately, she filed an appeal to the Supreme Court in July to seek a ruling, but the judgment remained unchanged.With the dismissal of the appeal without further hearing, the appellate courts decision was finalized, leaving Ms. B responsible for the breakdown of the de facto marriage, as well as her obligation to pay 30 million won in alimony and 800,000 won per month in child support, intact.There was a separate financial issue behind Ms. As claim that she was at a greater loss. According to reports citing the court ruling, B provided financial support for As opening of a Pilates center, and the court ruled that A must return 30 million won to B following the breakdown of their de facto marriage.Ultimately, while A received 30 million won as alimony for the breakdown of the de facto marriage, the structure dictates that A must return the same amount of 30 million won in separate financial matters. This explains why A expressed dissatisfaction, stating, Even though I receive alimony, I have to pay more because of the money given under the pretext of investment.Meanwhile, Hong Seo-beom and Jo Gap-kyung personally apologized as the controversy surrounding their sons private life intensified. At the time, the couple stated, We have personally reviewed relevant materials, including the court ruling, and the progress of the lawsuit, and have gravely confirmed that there is a discrepancy between what we were previously informed of and the actual situation.They added, We will strictly guide our son through his legal representatives to ensure that obligations under the first-instance ruling, such as child support and alimony, are promptly fulfilled, and We will keep a close watch on him to ensure he fulfills his responsibilities as a father to the very end. Mr. A won the case legally. However, the legal battle came to an end without him obtaining the level of compensation he had wanted.
She won the lawsuit. However, claiming that as the victim, I am suffering more loss, she took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. Yet, the outcome remained unchanged.The legal battle that spanned approximately two years between A, who was in a de facto marital relationship with the son of singers Hong Seo-beom and Jo Gap-kyung, has come to an end. As the Supreme Court rejected As appeal, the appellate courts ruling ordering A to pay 30 million won in alimony and 800,000 won per month in child support to the son was finalized.The dispute between the two began in 2024. A claimed that while maintaining a de facto marital relationship with B, the relationship broke down after B engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a coworker shortly after she became pregnant and subsequently left the house.The first-instance court ruled that B was at fault for the breakdown of the de facto marital relationship. It ordered B to pay A 30 million won in alimony and bear the burden of 800,000 won per month in child support.However, A, who had won the case, appealed. She believed that the alimony and child support determined by the court were insufficient compared to the damages she had suffered. Consequently, the First Family Division of the Daejeon Family Court, handling the appeal, issued a partial victory ruling for the plaintiff, Ms. A, on June 25.Afterward, Ms. A expressed strong dissatisfaction. She lamented, Even if I receive alimony, I have to pay more because of the money given under the pretext of investment, and the child support remains the same, asking, Why must I, the victim, suffer more damage and live at a loss? Ultimately, she filed an appeal to the Supreme Court in July to seek a ruling, but the judgment remained unchanged.With the dismissal of the appeal without further hearing, the appellate courts decision was finalized, leaving Ms. B responsible for the breakdown of the de facto marriage, as well as her obligation to pay 30 million won in alimony and 800,000 won per month in child support, intact.There was a separate financial issue behind Ms. As claim that she was at a greater loss. According to reports citing the court ruling, B provided financial support for As opening of a Pilates center, and the court ruled that A must return 30 million won to B following the breakdown of their de facto marriage.Ultimately, while A received 30 million won as alimony for the breakdown of the de facto marriage, the structure dictates that A must return the same amount of 30 million won in separate financial matters. This explains why A expressed dissatisfaction, stating, Even though I receive alimony, I have to pay more because of the money given under the pretext of investment.Meanwhile, Hong Seo-beom and Jo Gap-kyung personally apologized as the controversy surrounding their sons private life intensified. At the time, the couple stated, We have personally reviewed relevant materials, including the court ruling, and the progress of the lawsuit, and have gravely confirmed that there is a discrepancy between what we were previously informed of and the actual situation.They added, We will strictly guide our son through his legal representatives to ensure that obligations under the first-instance ruling, such as child support and alimony, are promptly fulfilled, and We will keep a close watch on him to ensure he fulfills his responsibilities as a father to the very end. Mr. A won the case legally. However, the legal battle came to an end without him obtaining the level of compensation he had wanted.

She won the lawsuit. However, claiming that "as the victim, I am suffering more loss," she took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. Yet, the outcome remained unchanged.

The legal battle that spanned approximately two years between A, who was in a de facto marital relationship with the son of singers Hong Seo-beom and Jo Gap-kyung, has come to an end. As the Supreme Court rejected A’s appeal, the appellate court’s ruling ordering A to pay 30 million won in alimony and 800,000 won per month in child support to the son was finalized.

The dispute between the two began in 2024. A claimed that while maintaining a de facto marital relationship with B, the relationship broke down after B engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a coworker shortly after she became pregnant and subsequently left the house.

The first-instance court ruled that B was at fault for the breakdown of the de facto marital relationship. It ordered B to pay A 30 million won in alimony and bear the burden of 800,000 won per month in child support.

However, A, who had won the case, appealed. She believed that the alimony and child support determined by the court were insufficient compared to the damages she had suffered. Consequently, the First Family Division of the Daejeon Family Court, handling the appeal, issued a partial victory ruling for the plaintiff, Ms. A, on June 25.

Afterward, Ms. A expressed strong dissatisfaction. She lamented, "Even if I receive alimony, I have to pay more because of the money given under the pretext of investment, and the child support remains the same," asking, "Why must I, the victim, suffer more damage and live at a loss?" Ultimately, she filed an appeal to the Supreme Court in July to seek a ruling, but the judgment remained unchanged.

With the dismissal of the appeal without further hearing, the appellate court's decision was finalized, leaving Ms. B responsible for the breakdown of the de facto marriage, as well as her obligation to pay 30 million won in alimony and 800,000 won per month in child support, intact.

There was a separate financial issue behind Ms. A's claim that she was "at a greater loss." According to reports citing the court ruling, B provided financial support for A’s opening of a Pilates center, and the court ruled that A must return 30 million won to B following the breakdown of their de facto marriage.

Ultimately, while A received 30 million won as alimony for the breakdown of the de facto marriage, the structure dictates that A must return the same amount of 30 million won in separate financial matters. This explains why A expressed dissatisfaction, stating, "Even though I receive alimony, I have to pay more because of the money given under the pretext of investment."

Meanwhile, Hong Seo-beom and Jo Gap-kyung personally apologized as the controversy surrounding their son's private life intensified. At the time, the couple stated, "We have personally reviewed relevant materials, including the court ruling, and the progress of the lawsuit, and have gravely confirmed that there is a discrepancy between what we were previously informed of and the actual situation."

They added, "We will strictly guide our son through his legal representatives to ensure that obligations under the first-instance ruling, such as child support and alimony, are promptly fulfilled," and "We will keep a close watch on him to ensure he fulfills his responsibilities as a father to the very end." Mr. A won the case legally. However, the legal battle came to an end without him obtaining the level of compensation he had wanted.