Exclusive: Court orders journalist to pay W200m over false prostitution report on The Boyz's Ju Haknyeon

A court has ordered a journalist to pay 200 million won ($151,000) to Ju Haknyeon, a former member of idol group The Boyz, after ruling that the reporter falsely accused him of paying for sex. The court found that "the article contained false facts" and that Ju "most likely met the woman out of mutual attraction, not for prostitution."

Seoul Central District Court's Civil Division 25, presided over by Judge Kwon Ki-man, ruled Friday in favor of Ju in a damages lawsuit he filed against the journalist, identified only as Reporter A. Of the 1 billion won Ju had sought, the court recognized 200 million won in damages.

The controversy began last June, when Ju traveled to Japan to attend an awards ceremony. Japanese media photographed him drinking with Asuka Kirara, a well-known Japanese adult film actor, and the two were seen making physical contact. After the images sparked a public backlash, Ju's agency, One Hundred, suspended his activities and terminated his exclusive contract.

Reporter A cited multiple entertainment industry sources in reporting that Ju "was found to have engaged in prostitution" at the time. The article also claimed that Ju "was said to have admitted to the act" and referenced the penalties under South Korea's Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts.

Ju denied the allegations. He said at the time that while he had attended a drinking gathering with an acquaintance, "there was absolutely no prostitution or any other illegal act whatsoever." He subsequently filed a criminal complaint against Reporter A and brought a civil lawsuit.

In the civil case, the court concluded that Reporter A "defamed Ju by stating false facts in writing and publishing the article."

The court weighed testimony from witnesses present at the gathering, recordings of agency staff discussing how to respond to the controversy, and the circumstances surrounding Ju's meeting with the woman. It found that Ju's visit to the woman's home after the drinking session was "most likely the result of mutual attraction, not prostitution."

The court noted that a witness who attended the gathering "testified that there was no sexual act involving the exchange of money at the meeting" and that the woman's agency "also stated that the prostitution claim was groundless."

The court added that it was "difficult to accept" that the woman — an influencer and businessperson with more than 2.8 million followers — would engage in prostitution, and said the same reasoning applied to Ju.

Reporter A had written in the original article that Ju "handed money to the woman," but the court found no record of Ju exchanging Korean won for Japanese yen during his stay in Japan. An agency official also testified that "Ju did not carry cash."

The court further noted that based on meeting recordings and testimony from agency staff, there appeared to be no shared awareness of any issue related to prostitution — not only on Ju's part, but among agency executives and employees as well.

The court also took issue with Reporter A's refusal during the trial to present specific materials or objective evidence, citing source protection. "If a reporter is not required to provide supporting evidence on grounds of source protection, there is no way to verify false reporting based on anonymous sources," the court said. "If the burden of proof is not met, there must be a penalty." It added that source protection "is recognized when a source faces the risk of disadvantage — such as being a whistleblower — not as a blanket shield."

Reporter A argued during the trial that the facts had been verified through Cha Ga-won, the chairman of Ju's agency, but the court rejected that claim as well. It found that even reviewing the KakaoTalk chat logs and partial recordings Reporter A submitted, "it is difficult to conclude that the article was true or that there were reasonable grounds to believe it was."

The court set damages at 200 million won, saying the figure was appropriate after considering the headline's content, size and phrasing, the nature of the defamation, Ju's profession and social standing, the extent of the harm, the degree of effort Reporter A made to verify the facts, and whether steps such as a correction were taken to protect Ju's rights.

The ruling has not yet been finalized, as the deadline to file an appeal has not passed.

Reporter A is also facing a separate criminal trial on charges of defamation under the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection. A second hearing is scheduled at Seoul Western District Court next month. Reporter A's side has denied the charges, saying there was "no awareness that the reporting was false."

Meanwhile, Ju also prevailed in July in a separate civil case in which his former agency sued him for 8 billion won in damages. The agency had sought a penalty for breach of contract, but the court ruled that Ju's meeting with the woman "falls within the realm of private life" and that while it "may have been inappropriate conduct, it cannot be seen as a serious act of reputational damage." A police investigation into the prostitution allegation was also closed without referral to prosecutors last June.