Person Mistaken as Mistress by Actress Hwang Jung-eum Pleads for End to Secondary Harm, Explains Settlement Failure

‍

A person identified as A, who was mistakenly accused of being a mistress by actress Hwang Jung-eum, has appealed for an end to secondary harm and clarified the reasons for the settlement failure, stating it was not about money.

On the 26th, A took to social media to express their distress, saying, “The essence of the case is being overshadowed by baseless speculative settlement amounts, which is disheartening.

The settlement failed because the clause acknowledging defamation was deleted, and an additional clause was added stating that I, the victim, would have to pay double the settlement amount if I leaked or breached the agreement.”

A further explained, “Even though a correction article clarifying that I am not a mistress was published, some people believe only what they want to believe.
As an unmarried person, I want to completely clear this stigma for my future husband, children, in-laws, and my dreams, so I decided to sue Hwang Jung-eum.”

A continued, “Hwang Jung-eum claimed financial difficulties, so I agreed to a settlement amount that was half of the initially agreed sum and even accepted it to be paid in installments over two months.

I wanted to resolve it quickly for my mental and emotional well-being.”

A also stated, “The agency claimed that I refused meetings and increased the settlement amount at the final stage, but I was hesitant to meet during the process and didn’t really want to meet.

There’s no reason for me to meet someone who called me a prostitute and made sexually harassing remarks. Meeting should happen when both parties are ready to conclude things amicably.”

A further pleaded, “To those who think this is all about money, could you quietly endure such an ordeal? The delays in responding on the day of the incident, the deletion of the defamation acknowledgment clause, accepting half the settlement amount, the clause to pay double if leaked, and the late response – does this look like an apology? It felt like betrayal to me, causing more hurt.”

A concluded, “The ongoing claims that this is all about money, along with the humiliation and shame felt in real-time on the day of the incident, are deeply distressing.

Please stop the secondary harm and focus on the essence of the case.”

Earlier in April, Hwang Jung-eum caused controversy by mistakenly identifying A as her ex-husband’s mistress in a social media post.

The two parties attempted to settle, but the settlement fell through, leading A to file a defamation lawsuit against Hwang Jung-eum.

‍

Here is A’s full social media post

The essence of the case is being overshadowed by baseless speculative settlement amounts, which is disheartening.

The settlement failed because the clause acknowledging defamation was deleted, and an additional clause was added stating that I, the victim, would have to pay double the settlement amount if I leaked or breached the agreement.

Even though a correction article clarifying that I am not a mistress was published, some people believe only what they want to believe.

As an unmarried person, I want to completely clear this stigma for my future husband, children, in-laws, and my dreams, so I decided to sue Hwang Jung-eum.

Hwang Jung-eum claimed financial difficulties, so I agreed to a settlement amount that was half of the initially agreed sum and even accepted it to be paid in installments over two months.

I wanted to resolve it quickly for my mental and emotional well-being.

The agency claimed that I refused meetings and increased the settlement amount at the final stage, but I was hesitant to meet during the process and didn’t really want to meet.

There’s no reason for me to meet someone who called me a prostitute and made sexually harassing remarks. Meeting should happen when both parties are ready to conclude things amicably.

To those who think this is all about money, could you quietly endure such an ordeal? The delays in responding on the day of the incident, the deletion of the defamation acknowledgment clause, accepting half the settlement amount, the clause to pay double if leaked, and the late response – does this look like an apology? It felt like betrayal to me, causing more hurt.

The ongoing claims that this is all about money, along with the humiliation and shame felt in real-time on the day of the incident, are deeply distressing.
Please stop the secondary harm and focus on the essence of the case.

‍