SM Wins 170 Million Won Damages in Sojang Lawsuit Over Defamatory Videos

SM Entertainment has won a damages ruling against the operator of the YouTube channel Sojang, with a Seoul court ordering a total payment of 170 million won over videos targeting SM artists. The civil judgment focused on defamatory and personally attacking content involving EXO, Red Velvet and aespa, and it adds a major damages decision to the wider Sojang lawsuit record. ¹

SM Sojang Damages Ruling

SM Entertainment announced on April 29, 2026, that it had prevailed in its civil damages case against Park, identified as the operator of the YouTube channel known in Korean as Taldok Suyongso, widely referred to in English coverage as Sojang. The Seoul Central District Court’s Civil Division 14 issued its ruling on April 22, 2026, finding that videos aimed at EXO, Red Velvet and aespa violated the artists’ personal rights. ¹

The court ordered 130 million won in damages for the artists and separately recognized 40 million won in damages to SM Entertainment, bringing the total to 170 million won. ¹ Reports on the ruling described the videos as containing false information and personal attacks, and the court treated the conduct as an infringement of reputation and personal rights. ²

The decision is notable because the court did not limit the harm to the individual artists. It also acknowledged damage to SM Entertainment as a company, including harm connected to its business operations. Star Today reported that the court said the conduct appeared to have caused “substantial disruption to business promotion and work performance.” ²

That point is central to the legal meaning of the ruling. The case recognizes that malicious online content aimed at entertainers can damage not only personal dignity and reputation but also the commercial value and work of the agency that manages them. Korea Economic Daily reported that the court viewed artists’ image and public reputation as core assets of the company. ³

Why the Court Found Liability

The ruling centered on videos posted with false or personally attacking content. Star News reported that the court found the material had gone far beyond ordinary opinion, describing it as having “significantly departed from the scope of simple expression of opinion.” ⁴

That wording matters because online commentary about public figures often involves opinion, criticism and fan debate. The court’s finding, as reported, drew a line between ordinary expression and content that infringes on personal rights through falsehoods and personal attacks. In this case, the court concluded that the videos crossed that line.

SM Entertainment’s legal response also predates the civil judgment. Star News reported that SM filed a complaint in April 2024 against the operator on allegations including defamation under the Information and Communications Network Act and insult. ⁴ The civil ruling came after criminal proceedings connected to the channel operator had already advanced through appeals.

The operator was sentenced in January 2025 by the Incheon District Court to two years in prison, suspended for three years, along with 120 hours of community service and a forfeiture order of about 211.42 million won, and the original judgment was later finalized, according to Star Today. ² Sports Kyunghyang separately reported that the Supreme Court finalized a sentence on January 29, 2026, including two years in prison suspended for three years, 120 hours of community service and a forfeiture order in the 210 million won range. ⁵

Sports Kyunghyang also summarized the criminal case as involving 23 false or defamatory videos posted from October 2021 to June 2023 targeting seven people, including well-known entertainers and influencers. ⁵ The SM civil decision is therefore one part of a broader legal response to the channel’s content, but it is distinct in recognizing civil damages to both artists and the entertainment company.

Wider Impact of the Sojang Lawsuit

The financial consequences now extend beyond the 170 million won ordered in the SM civil case. Sports Kyunghyang reported that when criminal forfeiture and civil damages or settlement amounts are simply combined, the total reaches roughly 600 million won. ⁵ That figure was presented as an aggregate across proceedings and should be read as a combined scale rather than a single court award.

For entertainment agencies, the case reinforces the legal risk attached to channels that monetize claims about artists while relying on false or attacking content. It also shows how courts may assess the effect of reputational harm on both individual artists and the corporate structures built around their public image.

SM Entertainment has signaled that the matter is not simply closed as a single lawsuit. In its statement, the company said it would “continue strong legal action.” ¹ The phrase fits a broader industry pattern in which agencies have increasingly turned to civil and criminal procedures to respond to online defamation, harassment and rumor-driven content.

What was the SM Sojang lawsuit about?

The case concerned videos posted by the operator of the YouTube channel Sojang that targeted SM artists including EXO, Red Velvet and aespa. The Seoul Central District Court found that the content infringed personal rights and ordered 170 million won in total damages to the artists and SM Entertainment. ¹

How much did the court order the Sojang operator to pay?

The civil court ordered 130 million won for the artists and 40 million won for SM Entertainment, totaling 170 million won. ¹

Was there also a criminal case?

Yes. Reports state that the operator received a sentence of two years in prison suspended for three years, 120 hours of community service and a forfeiture order in the roughly 210 million won range, with the original judgment finalized after appeals. ²

The SM damages ruling turns the Sojang dispute into a clear civil liability case, not just a controversy over online rumor content. By recognizing harm to artists and to SM Entertainment’s business interests, the court’s 170 million won decision marks a significant legal consequence for defamatory entertainment content published online.

작성자 소개

Cloi Lee

Author

모든 글 보기