A high-profile back-and-forth is unfolding around comedian Park Na-rae, with her former managers linking their allegations of power abuse and embezzlement to a 2025 home theft ― and critics now questioning how much of their story holds up.
The ex-managers have long pointed to the April 2025 burglary at Park’s residence as the breaking point in their relationship, saying the absence of forced entry led to insider suspicions. They claim their personal information was turned over to police, leaving them feeling “treated like thieves” and deeply humiliated.
They also allege Park’s ex-boyfriend collected sensitive data ― including names, resident registration numbers, and home addresses ― under the pretext of preparing employment contracts, and that this paperwork was later submitted as reference material in the police probe.
But YouTuber and former entertainment reporter Lee Jin-ho has pushed back, saying Park’s side already had basic personal details such as managers’ resident registration numbers for payroll and tax purposes. Recompiling and submitting that information, he argued, isn’t evidence of deceit or humiliation ― noting it’s standard for long-term manager relationships to require such data for tax filings and payments.
Another wrinkle: Lee claims the first person to raise the possibility of an inside job wasn’t Park or her ex-boyfriend but former manager A. According to his reporting, A questioned a stylist during an internal meeting based on the lack of forced entry, and the team agreed to fully cooperate with police.
There are further questions around legal representation. Former manager A allegedly retained an attorney for Park as the theft victim, paying roughly 33 million won including VAT, with an additional success fee contingent on recovering stolen items. Observers are asking whether such a high fee structure ― and success-based terms ― were appropriate for a theft case. The attorney now said to be handling the dispute between Park and A is reportedly the same lawyer from the theft matter.
Separately, the ex-managers have accused Park of receiving improper injections from a non-medical professional, claimed she mistreated staff, and said they repeatedly requested but never received employment contracts.
However, newly surfaced KakaoTalk messages between a former manager and Park’s agency accountant appear to complicate those claims. In the exchange, the ex-manager asks for a contractor (business-to-business) agreement rather than an employee contract. In another message, when Park asks if the manager should be paid the same monthly salary as the stylist, the ex-manager replies that being paid even less would be acceptable ― fueling skepticism about the ex-managers’ narrative.
(SBS Entertainment News | Kang Kyung-youn)
댓글