Dispute grows over purpose of 30 million won transfer in Kim Seung-woo lawsuit

Actor Kim Seung-woo faces a lawsuit for allegedly taking 22 million won from an acquaintance in Cheongdam-dong, sparking a dispute over whether a subsequent 30 million won transfer was repayment or a 10% profit from a 300 million won drama investment.

Actor Kim Seung-woo has been sued for allegedly taking 22 million won in cash and checks from an acquaintance, a case that has gained a new point of contention following a 30 million won transfer made to the complainant two days after the incident. While Kim's side claims the transfer serves as evidence of repayment, the complainant, identified as A, counters that the amount was a contractually agreed profit from a drama investment and is unrelated to the alleged theft. The conflicting claims have created a standoff, further complicated by an 8 million won discrepancy between the alleged 22 million won taken and the 30 million won returned.

According to reports released on the 12th, Kim was sued by his acquaintance A in July. The incident is alleged to have occurred approximately five years ago on October 29, 2021. At the time, Kim was having drinks with acquaintances, including A, at an entertainment establishment in Cheongdam-dong, Gangnam District, Seoul. A claims that while they briefly left the seat, Kim took 22 million won in cash and checks from a wallet inside a bag.

While Kim's side admits to taking the money, they have drawn a line against characterizing the act as theft. In an official statement released on the 12th, his legal representative explained that the action was a playful occurrence among close acquaintances. The representative noted that the act took place in an open setting witnessed by others present and emphasized that there was an intention to return the money from the beginning.

The core evidence provided by Kim's side is the bank transfer record immediately following the incident. The explanation states that Kim intended to meet A the following day to return the money, but due to scheduling conflicts, the repayment was made via bank transfer. It has been reported that Kim transferred 30 million won to A's account on October 31, 2021, two days after the incident. Kim's side is presenting this transaction as proof of repayment.

However, this 30 million won transfer has sparked further controversy. A claims that the transfer has no connection to the repayment of the alleged theft. A explains that they had invested 300 million won in the production of a drama directed by Kim, and the 30 million won represents a contractually agreed profit on the investment principal. As the amount constitutes 10% of the 300 million won investment, A maintains it is a separate transaction from the 22 million won allegedly taken from the wallet.

Additional transfer records have been cited to support A's claims. It is reported that on November 1, the day after Kim sent the 30 million won, a further 300 million won was transferred to A. A asserts that the total 330 million won received over those two days consists only of the investment principal and the agreed profit, and that the 22 million won in stolen funds has still not been returned.

Ultimately, both sides are offering opposing interpretations of the same 30 million won transfer. Kim's side maintains that they returned more than the 22 million won taken, whereas A argues that the 30 million won was a payment made according to an existing investment contract and is unrelated to the theft. The core issue has shifted from the fact of the transfer itself to the specific purpose for which the money was paid.

The 8 million won difference between the 22 million won and 30 million won is also drawing attention. According to Kim's explanation, he transferred 8 million won more than the alleged theft amount; however, if A's claim is correct that the amount was investment profit, the two transactions are incomparable. Based on the currently disclosed positions, it is difficult to determine the exact purpose of the 30 million won transfer or the reason for the 8 million won discrepancy.

Kim's side stated they have completed their explanation to investigative authorities by submitting materials such as relevant account records and intend to respond strongly to any false claims. Conversely, A maintains that the theft has not been repaid, citing the records of the investment and profit payments.

As the legal dispute over an incident from a drinking session five years ago unfolds, the whereabouts of the 22 million won and the actual nature of the 30 million won transfer have emerged as the primary variables that will determine the truth of the case. With the explanation of "playfulness" clashing against the rebuttal of "investment funds," attention is focused on how investigative authorities will judge the purpose of the bank transactions and the circumstances at the time.

Read the original (Korean)