Neglecting Family While Meeting Ex-Husband Park Si-hoo… Eyewitness Testimony Available
Decided to Expose and File Custody Lawsuit Due to Child Neglect
**Influencer A Claims Actor Park Si-hoo Ruined Her Family**
Influencer A once posted on social media claiming that actor Park Si-hoo ruined her family. A is being interviewed at the law firm DAON’s office in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the 27th afternoon./Reporter Choi Hyun-jung
**[The FactㅣReporter Choi Hyun-jung]**
Influencer A made quite a peculiar exposé in August this year.
She made public on social media the conversations between her ex-husband B and actor Park Si-hoo, alleging that Park Si-hoo introduced women to her ex-husband B, leading to the family’s breakdown.
In response, Park Si-hoo’s side immediately refuted, stating it was “false information and a one-sided claim,” while ex-husband B insisted, “Park Si-hoo is just an older brother from my hometown, and I was never introduced to women by him.”
B, who founded a tourism business in Thailand and served as the president of the Korean Association in Thailand, is known to have connections with various celebrities. He clarified that he and A divorced six years ago and that A broke into his home and took his cellphone while he was away, leading to the leak of messages.
If true, A accessed her ex-husband’s phone without consent and revealed information she found. The claim that Park Si-hoo caused the family breakup, not by an affair but by introducing women, is hard to believe.
Nonetheless, A persists, stating she is a victim of both B and Park Si-hoo, maintaining that what she wrote is “the undeniable truth.”
A | further claims that B and Park Si-hoo, using their wealth and status, mobilized the media against her, while nobody listens to her side, expressing her frustration.
On the 27th, The Fact visited the law firm DAON’s office in Seoul to hear why A stands by her claims steadfastly.
The situation involves multiple legal battles between A, B, and Park Si-hoo. Shin Dong-woo, representing A, said, “Criminal complaints include B’s theft allegations against A, violations of the Personal Information Protection Act, and defamation. Park Si-hoo’s side filed a defamation lawsuit against A.”
Shin added, as of the 27th, “The defamation lawsuit filed by B against A has been sent to the prosecution, while the personal information law violation was dismissed. Park Si-hoo’s defamation complaint has not reached the prosecution yet, contrary to reports.”
Three civil lawsuits are ongoing: B requested A to remove postings, while A filed for custody changes and alimony requests against B.
“When they divorced in 2018, B promised to pay A 1 billion won in alimony, which remains unpaid. Their two children are under B’s custody, and A seeks to change this,” explained Shin.
The crux of A’s civil actions, she claims, is her grievance with her ex-husband’s handling of their child.
“My eldest has autism, and I thought B, being financially stable, could provide a better environment,” said A. “Even after the divorce, I lived with B for about three years and took care of the children, so I didn’t dwell on custody then.”
Issues arose once A left the household. “After I left, B didn’t even grant me visitation rights, so I only saw my kids about 10 times in 5 years,” she lamented. “Eventually, I was blocked from contacting my kids via phone or messenger.”
A decided to visit their home unannounced and discovered the neglected state of her child’s health, compelling her to take B’s cellphone with the hope of reaching out.
Her initial purpose of communication failed, but she uncovered the relationship between B and Park Si-hoo from B’s phone.
“B and I divorced in 2018, but we weren’t on bad terms and lived together till 2021,” claimed A. “Trouble began when B started hanging out with Park Si-hoo.”
Initially favorably disposed towards Park Si-hoo, A’s opinion changed as her ex-husband spent more time with Park, neglecting family duties and ending their post-divorce cohabitation.
After learning this distressing outcome from an acquaintance, A secured testimonies and recordings, asserting Park Si-hoo’s significant role in her family’s dissolution.
Ultimately, A wants her grievances acknowledged, seeking no more than transparency and acknowledgment from the involved parties.
**Law Firm DAON to Actively Respond to Legal Proceedings**
Law firm DAON expressed intent to actively engage in A’s future legal proceedings.
Attorney Shin Dong-woo clarified that A’s contested posts were grounded in “actual existing facts,” emphasizing their participation in numerous investigations and asserting the legitimacy of claims against Park Si-hoo’s involvement.
He further expressed concern that influential individuals might exploit their status and legal means like defamation to oppress ordinary people.
In collaboration with A, DAON vowed to face each ensuing step with resolve.