First Hearing Held in Lawsuit Against 60Gye Chicken Franchisee Over "Wire Contamination" Incident

Headquarters Lost Its Lawsuit Earlier This Year
No Compensation for the Victim More Than Two Years After the Incident

The first hearing for a damages lawsuit filed by a victim of the 'wire contamination' incident involving 60Gye Chicken, which occurred more than two years ago, against the franchise owner who sold the problematic chicken, was held on April 8.

On the afternoon of that day, the Incheon District Court's Civil Division 54 held its first oral argument in the damages claim suit filed by the victim, Mr. A, against Mr. B, the franchise owner of a 60Gye Chicken outlet in Incheon.

On March 31, 2024, Mr. A purchased boneless "Kekeke" chicken from Mr. B's 60Gye Chicken store, took it home, and ate it together with her husband and son. During the meal, a wire became lodged in the posterior pharyngeal wall (the back of the throat connecting to the esophagus). (See our March 19 article: Vomiting after eating chicken, a 2cm wire stuck in the throat... Is the chicken company not responsible?)

Although the wire was removed via endoscopic surgery, the attending doctor commented that if inflammation or erosion (damage to the mucous membrane) at the site worsened, or if an esophageal perforation occurred, it could pose a life-threatening risk. Despite this shocking incident, Mr. A has not received any compensation for damages from either the 60Gye Chicken headquarters (Jangs Food Co., Ltd.) or franchise owner Mr. B.

Immediately after the incident, employees from headquarters visited Mr. A in an attempt to reach a settlement. However, disagreements over the compensation amount and differing opinions about the epidemiological investigation of the wire, which was the only evidence, caused the conflict between the two sides to deepen further.

The appearance of the posterior pharyngeal wall before and after wire removal attached to Mr. A's hospital medical records.

In the midst of this, the headquarters instead filed a civil lawsuit against Mr. A, seeking a court declaration that they had no liability for damages. They also filed a police complaint against Mr. A for defamation under the Information and Communications Network Act after she posted about the incident on message boards such as BobaeDream and Nate Pann.

Mr. A was cleared of charges by the police, but earlier this year, the headquarters lost the first trial in the lawsuit they had filed.

The court acknowledged that the wire in question came from the chicken purchased at Mr. B's outlet. However, it found in favor of the headquarters, citing several reasons: under the Franchise Business Act, the franchise headquarters and the franchisee are independent, separate business entities; it was not proven whether the wire was mixed in during food preparation or during the processing or distribution of raw or supplementary ingredients supplied by headquarters.

In September last year, while the lawsuit against headquarters was still ongoing, Mr. A filed a separate suit against franchise owner Mr. B and requested that the cases be combined.

At the hearing, the presiding judge first asked both parties to confirm the progress of the prior lawsuit between Mr. A and headquarters.

Mr. A's attorney briefly explained the reason why headquarters lost its lawsuit against Mr. A. When the judge heard that it was the headquarters who had sued Mr. A, rather than the other way around, he reacted with slight surprise, saying, "Oh, so the defendant filed the lawsuit first?"

Mr. B's attorney explained that it was a 'declaratory action of non-existence of obligation.'

A view of the Incheon District Court in Michuhol-gu, Incheon. Photo by Seokjin Choi

The judge also asked, "So the medical expenses are 220,000 won and the compensation for mental distress is about 20 million won?" Mr. A's lawyer responded, "We set the amount for emotional damages in consideration of various circumstances, including that headquarters filed a criminal complaint for defamation, which caused Mr. A severe suffering."

In response, Mr. B's attorney argued, "Matters related to the criminal complaint concern the relationship with headquarters. Mr. A originally demanded 10 million won as a settlement. We agreed to pay the settlement if a causal investigation found that the wire could have originated from the cooking process. However, she refused and began posting online, saying she would notify the media if the settlement wasn't paid."

The judge asked, "Has it been proven that the wire was mixed in during the cooking process?"

Mr. A's attorney replied, "In the first trial, it was acknowledged that the wire was in the chicken, but it remained unclear who was responsible and at what stage the wire was mixed in, which led to losing the case. However, since the defendant (Mr. B) is the direct transaction party and the final supplier, we believe the defendant bears responsibility for supplying food in a completely safe state, and therefore is at fault."

Finally, the judge asked, "Have all the necessary documents been submitted?"

Mr. B's attorney replied, "If given one more opportunity, I will collect and submit all the documents."

The next hearing is scheduled for the 13th of next month.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.