JENNIE (BLACKPINK) wins lawsuit against man and publisher who falsely claimed to be her real father and even published a book

Jennie, a member of the Korean girl group BLACKPINK, won a lawsuit against a man who falsely claimed to be her biological father.
According to the legal profession on the 18th, the Uijeongbu District Court Goyang Branch issued a ruling on the 9th of last month saying, "A
It is reasonable to conclude that the claim that he is Jennie's biological father is false," and upheld Jennie's request to ban the distribution of publications.
The court ordered A and publisher B to destroy all related publications, and A posted JENNIE
The issue of JENNIE's biological father started with a novel written by A, which was published by AI. A had put the JENNIE logo on the cover of the book, etc.
He even used the logo of Jennie's management office OA Entertainment without permission. He also claimed that Jennie is his daughter.
As a result, online communities and fans have been discussing the background of Jennie's family.
Jennie, who has never spoken about her biological father in an official capacity, released an official statement through her management office on September 6th of last year, teasing legal action.
In response, OA Entertainment, through its legal representative, law firm Yulchon, filed a lawsuit against Company A and publisher Company B on December 24th of last year, seeking to ban the distribution of the publication.
The court stated, "There is no evidence other than the defendants' claims that Defendant A is Plaintiff Jenny's biological father, and on Plaintiff Jenny's family relationship certificate, there is no other person listed as the father besides Defendant A.
The fact that the person in question is recorded is clearly recognized," and the court ruled that A's claims were false. As a result, A was instructed to delete his KakaoTalk profile picture and all posts he had left on social media.
The court also ordered that the books "cannot be sold unless the prologue and cover containing the claim that he is the father are deleted, and that all existing books be destroyed."
However, the court determined that this case was a claim based on honor rights (personal rights) and not a claim for property rights, and did not impose a provisional execution order or impose a fine.