Seoul High Court ruled that it is difficult to recognize that A committed an illicit act in relation to allegations of an affair with UN member Choi Jeong-won.
22nd A's legal representative, lawyer No Jong-eon of law firm Jonjae, said in a press release, "On Sept. 19, 2025, the Seoul High Court in the appeal of the divorce suit between A and her husband ruled that the relationship between the two does not constitute an illicit act, and that the responsibility for the breakdown of the marriage lies with the husband's coercive attitude, and overturned the first-instance ruling."
Earlier, Choi Jeong-won was embroiled in an affair allegation in 2023. A's husband, Mr. B, claimed on his YouTube channel that Choi Jeong-won and his wife had inappropriate meetings that led to the breakdown of the marriage. According to him, A and Choi Jeong-won were former lovers, and recently they dated, including drinking wine together and enjoying bicycle rides. Mr. B also said that he is currently in the process of divorcing A and has already filed a lawsuit against Choi Jeong-won.
In response, Choi Jeong-won posted directly, saying, "We were not former lovers; she is a neighborhood younger sibling my family has known since childhood," and countered, "Her name appeared on KakaoTalk after a long time, and I contacted her out of friendliness to ask how she was doing and we had two or three meals together, but we mostly talked about family, work, and children—everyday matters—and nothing like the unsavory events described in the article ever happened."
Later, A also explained in an interview with a media outlet, "I was never in a romantic relationship with Choi Jeong-won. We have been close like siblings since our twenties, and I was happy to reconnect after more than a decade. My parents and older sister have known Choi Jeong-won for a long time."
However, in December last year the Seoul Family Court ruled in A and B's divorce suit that "the main responsibility for the breakdown of the marriage lies with A, who violated the duty of fidelity by committing an illicit act." The court said, "A went alone into Choi Jeong-won's house and spent time there, told the defendant (Mr. B) that she was going to take the child involved on an outing and then left the child alone at a game arcade, met Choi Jeong-won on June 18, 2022, and went exercising together, dating and committing an illicit act. When the defendant learned of this around June that year, the conflict between the plaintiff and the defendant intensified," and ordered A to pay Mr. B 30 million won in compensation.
Although the first-instance court judged the meetings between the two as "illicit acts" and held A mainly responsible for the marriage breakdown, the appellate court on the 19th overturned that judgment after carefully examining the facts. The court said in its ruling, "It is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff (A) and Choi Jeong-won engaged in an illicit act as defined in Article 840(1) of the Civil Code to the extent of failing to fulfill the duty of fidelity beyond mere acquaintance, or that this caused the marriage relationship to break down. Rather, it is reasonable to find that the marriage broke down because the defendant (the husband) consistently took a coercive attitude toward the plaintiff and others in the process of resolving the conflicts that arose."
Lawyer No Jong-eon of law firm Jonjae said, "After the first-instance ruling, A endured an immeasurable time of suffering under the social stigma of being labeled an 'adulteress.' As a result, her health seriously deteriorated, making it difficult to continue working, and she is still fighting a severe illness and struggling day to day for her child."
He added, "The Supreme Court, as a court of law, in principle does not make new determinations of factual matters. Therefore, it is extremely likely that this Seoul High Court ruling will be the substantive final judgment," and appealed, "Since the reports after the first-instance ruling that Choi Jeong-won and A were in an affair have been revealed to be untrue by the higher court's judgment, we earnestly ask that the factual record be corrected and that A's social stigma and damaged reputation be restored even a little."
Meanwhile, separate from the divorce suit with A, Mr. B filed a lawsuit seeking 100 million won in damages from Choi Jeong-won for an act of adultery, and that trial is currently underway. In response, Choi Jeong-won countersued Mr. B on charges of instigating defamation and violating the Information and Communications Network Act.
[Photo] OSEN DB
[OSEN]