Breaking: Belated power of Attorney Sparks Legal Clash in Celebrity Alimony Case

A high-profile Trot singer, Suk-haeng, has escalated a developing alimony dispute by belatedly appointing counsel and submitting a power of attorney, triggering a renewed stage of litigation.

Court insiders report that the Seongnam Branch of the Suwon District Court canceled the originally scheduled sentencing date in the alimony case brought by the husband of Suk-haeng’s accuser. The suit, lodged in September 2025, had proceeded with Suk-haeng failing to file a response for more than three months, leading to a judgment date set for the 15th. Following public attention, Suk-haeng moved to solidify her defense by naming a lawyer and submitting the power of attorney on the 7th. The plaintiff’s claimed costs amount to 100 million won.

The dispute frist drew public attention last December, when the plaintiff, Ms. B, told a television program that her husband, mr.A, and suk-haeng’s alleged affair disrupted their family and that an associated case of marital damage was underway. Ms. B also alleged the two maintained an improper relationship that seriously affected the marriage.

Suk-haeng later admitted meeting Mr. A but said she was told the marriage had already reached an irreparable impasse and that a divorce was being pursued. Believing that narrative, she said she began a relationship, but she ended it upon learning that the divorce had not been agreed upon. She characterized herself as a victim of deception.

Mr. A has maintained a different account, telling the court and media that he met Suk-haeng while living separately under the premise of divorce, and that the situation could be unfair from Suk-haeng’s viewpoint.

Context and evergreen insights

Celebrity legal episodes often test how courts manage timing and public interest. In this case, a delay in formal responses can affect court calendars and potential rulings. Across jurisdictions, alimony actions hinge on proof of marital breakdown and the financial duties underlying spousal support.Public scrutiny can amplify pressure on both sides, but it does not replace the requirement for credible evidence and orderly procedure.

As this case unfolds, observers may consider how belated legal steps, such as appointing counsel after initial filings, influence outcomes and perceptions of fairness. Understanding the legal mechanisms at play helps illuminate how similar alimony disputes evolve in high-profile settings.

Reader questions

1) In high-profile cases, should public attention influence judicial decisions or the pace of proceedings? Why or why not?

2) How should courts balance timely action with rights to robust legal defense when a party delays filing? Share your perspective.

For ongoing updates on this story and related coverage, stay with us as more details emerge.