"Who Ha Jung-woo Considered as the Contracting Party Is Important"
Tongyeong District Court Rules in Favor of Male Buyer Last Month
Actor Ha Jung-woo's 15 million won painting became the subject of a legal dispute between former lovers. The fight was between a man who visited Ha Jung-woo's studio and expressed his intention to buy the painting, and a woman who lent him money and kept the painting.
The court ruled that the man who visited Ha Jung-woo's studio and directly expressed his intention to purchase the painting holds ownership, while the woman who lent the funds does not have ownership.
According to the legal community on the 5th, Judge Cho Hyun-rak of the Civil Division 1 at Changwon District Court Tongyeong Branch ruled on the 8th of last month in a lawsuit filed by Mr. Lee against his ex-girlfriend Ms. Kim for the delivery of movable property, ordering "Ms. Kim to deliver the 2015 work 'October' (by Ha Jung-woo) to Mr. Lee." Neither party appealed, so the ruling was finalized as is.
Mr. Lee borrowed 15 million won from his then-girlfriend Ms. Kim in February 2016 to purchase the 'October' painting from actor Ha Jung-woo. The two had promised to marry.
Mr. Lee is a senior and junior alumnus with Ha Jung-woo from university, and after purchasing the artwork directly from Ha Jung-woo, he kept it at his parents' house before entrusting it to Ms. Kim from February 2018 due to personal circumstances.
The problem arose when their marriage was called off. When Ms. Kim refused to return the Ha Jung-woo painting, Mr. Lee filed a lawsuit in April 2022.
Ms. Kim argued, "At the time, we were planning to marry," and claimed that "even if Mr. Lee is the co-owner or owner of the painting, I have the right to possess the painting by establishing a transfer security right or pledge to secure the repayment of the loan."
However, the court judged that Mr. Lee, the purchaser of the painting, is the owner. Judge Cho stated, "Who the contracting party is is a matter of interpreting the intention of the parties involved in the contract. When the parties' intentions coincide, the contracting party should be determined according to that intention. When the parties' intentions do not coincide, it should be judged from the perspective of the recipient of the declaration of intention, based on who a reasonable person would understand as the contracting party."
Judge Cho explained, "Mr. Lee had a friendly relationship as a senior and junior alumnus with Ha Jung-woo, the artist of the work. Mr. Lee visited Ha Jung-woo's studio and expressed his intention to buy the painting, and to pay the purchase price, he received 10 million won from Ms. Kim at the end of January 2016 and 5 million won in early February, which he paid to Ha Jung-woo."
He added, "It can be acknowledged that Mr. Lee received the painting from Ha Jung-woo and kept it at his parents' house before Ms. Kim took custody of the painting from February 2018. Considering the circumstances of the sales contract, Ha Jung-woo would have regarded Mr. Lee as the contracting party, so the purchaser of the painting should be recognized as Mr. Lee according to the mutual intention of Ha Jung-woo and Mr. Lee involved in the contract."
Furthermore, he ruled, "Ms. Kim only started keeping the painting at Mr. Lee's request while they were dating, and based on the submitted evidence alone, it is insufficient to conclude that she was a co-owner or held the painting as a transfer security right holder or pledgee."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
