Cha Ga-won Denies Fraud Charges as Court Seeks Clarity on 5.4 Billion Won Lease Allegation

Court asks prosecutors to explain the lease charge

Cha Ga-won, the head of entertainment agency One Hundred, denied all fraud charges at her first trial on October 13, while the Seoul Central District Court asked prosecutors to clarify a central part of their case: how the alleged deception over a housing agreement connects to a 5.4 billion won deposit.

The hearing took place before Criminal Division 23, presided over by Judge Oh Se-yong. Prosecutors accuse Cha of receiving 24.2 billion won in advance payments for businesses involving artists' intellectual property without carrying out the promised projects. A separate charge concerns money received under an allegedly unfulfilled housing lease agreement with an acquaintance identified by the surname Jang.

The two headline amounts total 29.6 billion won. Although the case has been described as involving around or more than 30 billion won, the specific figures reported for these two allegations fall 400 million won short of 30 billion won. No separate amount explaining a total above that threshold has been identified.

Cha faces fraud charges under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes. She remains detained at Seoul Detention Center, but neither detention nor an indictment establishes guilt. The first hearing produced no verdict.

Her defense said it needed more time to examine the case records before presenting detailed arguments and its position on the evidence. Asked by the court whether she shared her lawyers' denial of the charges, Cha answered yes.

The court's request for a clearer account of the housing allegation was not a dismissal of that charge. It directed prosecutors to explain more precisely what deception they allege and how it led to the amount they say was taken.

Four artist projects account for 24.2 billion won

The larger allegation concerns advance payments from Nommus, the entertainment and technology company identified as the operator of the fan platform Fromm. Prosecutors say Cha proposed commercial projects using the intellectual property of artists associated with her agency, received payment, and failed to perform the agreed business.

Intellectual property, often shortened to IP, refers here to rights used in commercial activities connected to artists, such as authorized merchandise, performances and digital services. The prosecution's account separates the payments into four proposed projects:

• 5.5 billion won for a Taemin performance contract.
• 5.5 billion won for a Taemin merchandise distribution contract.
• 12.1 billion won for merchandise production and distribution involving EXO members Chen, Baekhyun and Xiumin, known together as Chen-Baek-Xi.
• 1.1 billion won for a platform business connected to fromis_9.

Those figures add up exactly to the stated 24.2 billion won advance. The Chen-Baek-Xi merchandise agreement accounts for half of that amount. The two Taemin agreements together account for 11 billion won, with the remaining 1.1 billion won attributed to the fromis_9 project.

The artists' names identify the business rights allegedly promised. Their inclusion in the prosecution's account does not establish that they participated in any wrongdoing. Cha denies the allegations, and her detailed response to each proposed contract is expected at a later hearing.

Investigators examined an allegedly overlapping contract

The investigation went beyond whether a promised project ultimately took place. Police also alleged that Cha entered a duplicate agreement while an existing contract with another company was unlikely to expire soon, without informing the new business partner of that obstacle.

That allegation concerns whether Cha could deliver the rights or business she allegedly promised when the advance was paid. It is distinct from the bare fact that a project did not proceed. A failed commercial agreement and criminal fraud are not automatically the same: the prosecution must establish the alleged deception, rather than rely solely on nonperformance.

The first hearing did not resolve the status of the earlier contract, what Nommus knew, or why the projects were not carried out. Cha's lawyers reserved their detailed position while reviewing the records, leaving those factual disputes for the evidence stage.

Police reportedly traced bank accounts and analyzed contractual relationships after prosecutors declined two earlier requests to seek a detention warrant and called for further investigation. A third application eventually led prosecutors to request a warrant on July 28.

The housing agreement is described differently

The second major allegation concerns a jeonse arrangement with Jang. Jeonse is a Korean housing lease system in which a tenant provides a substantial deposit, generally refundable at the end of the lease, instead of paying conventional monthly rent.

Several accounts describe a reciprocal arrangement: Cha and the acquaintance were to sign leases on homes each owned. Prosecutors allege that Cha received 5.4 billion won but did not enter into the contract she had promised to fulfill.

Reports differ on the scope of this allegation. One account describes prosecutors alleging that Cha had affiliated entertainers obtain jeonse loans and promised housing, collecting approximately 5.4 billion won through December of the previous year. Other accounts describe the charge as a housing exchange involving the acquaintance. It is not clear whether those descriptions concern the same transactions or different elements of the allegation.

The court asked prosecutors to supplement or revise the charge so that the relationship between the alleged deception and the money received would be apparent. That instruction matters because the trial must address a defined accusation, including what was promised, what was allegedly false and which payments resulted.

No detailed explanation resolving those differences was reported from the opening hearing. The prosecution's further submission is therefore an important part of the next stage, separate from the defense's blanket denial.

Jang and the defense dispute whether the deposit can be recovered

A related dispute concerns Jang's application for a compensation order, a request for repayment or damages within the criminal proceedings. Most accounts describe the request as approximately 5.4 billion won; one gives the more precise figure of 5.41 billion won. The reason for that 10 million won difference has not been explained.

Cha's lawyer, Min Byeong-gwon, argued that the application should be rejected because Jang had tenant rights under the Housing Lease Protection Act and could recover the money through the villa. In the defense's view, those protections undermined the claim that actual financial harm and deception had been established.

The defense also questioned whether Jang had lawful possession of the home because the balance of the lease deposit had allegedly not been fully paid. These were arguments presented by Cha's side, not findings made by the court.

Cheon Gi-seop of Nova Law Firm, representing Jang, disputed the suggestion that the property provided sufficient security. He said the villa's value and existing claims against it left little prospect of recovering the deposit:

The villa is not highly valuable and there are substantial prior claims, so the amount that can be recovered is not large.

The disagreement is therefore about both legal entitlement and practical recovery. A tenant may claim rights against a property, while the amount recoverable from a sale can still depend on its value and the claims that must be paid first.

Tenant protection does not settle the valuation dispute

The defense invoked a tenant's ability under the Housing Lease Protection Act to assert lease rights against a new owner or another party acquiring the property. Such protection can matter when a home changes ownership, but the parties disagree about Jang's status and what that status would mean for recovering the deposit.

Jang's side pointed to substantial senior claims, meaning claims that would be paid ahead of others from the proceeds of an auction or sale. If those claims absorb much of the property's value, a deposit may not be recovered in full even when a tenant has enforceable rights.

The first hearing did not establish the villa's market value, the amount secured by the senior claims, or the sum Jang could actually receive from an auction. Without those figures, neither side's recovery argument can be treated as a settled financial calculation.

The court asked both sides to submit further views on the legality of the compensation application and whether actual loss had occurred. That leaves two related but distinct matters unresolved: the criminal accusation of fraud and whether compensation should be ordered within this proceeding.

Detention and the next hearing

Reports identify August 3 as the date the court issued Cha's detention warrant, citing concern about the destruction of evidence. An account of the indictment identifies the Seoul Central District Prosecutors Office's Tax Crime Investigation Department, headed by Chief Prosecutor Yong Tae-ho, as the unit that brought the case.

The calendar year is not consistent across reports. One dates the indictment to August 25, 2026, while others refer to an August indictment without specifying a year, and one describes it as occurring in the previous year. The reported October 13 hearing and November 3 next hearing should therefore not be assigned a definitive year on that basis.

The reported procedural sequence is:

• June: Police sought detention warrants twice; prosecutors requested further investigation rather than proceeding with those applications.
• July 28: Prosecutors requested a warrant after a third police application.
• August 3: The court issued a detention warrant over concern about evidence destruction.
• August: Cha was indicted while detained, with one account specifying August 25.
• October 13: Cha denied the charges at the first trial hearing.
• November 3, at 10 a.m.: The next hearing is scheduled to address positions on the evidence and plans for proving the case.
• December: Witness examinations are planned.

Cha's lawyers also asked the court to consider an illness that predated detention and her health while in custody. No diagnosis or resulting court decision was reported.

Artist contract disputes form a separate legal front

Cha, a former real estate developer associated with Piark Group, founded One Hundred with singer MC Mong in 2023. She later operated the company alone after he left following a falling out. Reports place his departure in July of the previous year, without a consistently established calendar year.

A further account says Cha sued MC Mong in July of the previous year for repayment of a 12 billion won loan. No outcome of that claim is given, and it should not be confused with the criminal charges involving Nommus and the housing deposit.

One Hundred and its affiliated labels also face disputes with artists who have notified the company that they are terminating exclusive contracts, citing unpaid settlements. Those named include The Boyz, Lee Seung-gi, Lee Mu-jin, Viviz, Chen, Baekhyun and Xiumin, as well as broadcaster Kim Dae-ho.

Settlements in this context refer to payments artists say they are owed under their contractual arrangements. The notices indicate a breakdown in those relationships, but do not by themselves establish the legal validity of every termination or the amount owed to each performer.

These disputes overlap commercially with the criminal case because the agency's proposed businesses involved artist rights. They remain separate legal questions. At the next hearing, the immediate tasks are narrower: clarify the housing accusation, establish the parties' positions on the evidence and prepare for witness testimony.

Key Points

• Cha Ga-won denied all fraud charges at her October 13 first trial before Judge Oh Se-yong.
• The stated allegations involve 24.2 billion won in artist business advances and a 5.4 billion won housing deposit, totaling 29.6 billion won.
• The court asked prosecutors to explain how the alleged housing deception connects to the amount received.
• The defense and Jang dispute tenant rights, property value and the likelihood of recovering the deposit.
• Cha remains detained. The next hearing is scheduled for November 3 at 10 a.m., with witness examinations planned for December.
• Artist payment and contract termination disputes remain separate from the unresolved criminal charges.