According to industry sources on January 27, SSG.com has set Cha Eunwoo-related promotional videos to private on its official YouTube channel. Cha Eunwoo had been appointed as the platform’s exclusive beauty model last year. While the company did not disclose the reason for the change, the timing shortly after reports surfaced of a ₩20 billion tax assessment has fueled speculation that the decision is directly linked to the allegations.
This marks yet another addition to a growing list of brands cutting ties with the star. Earlier, skincare brand Abib made Cha Eunwoo’s advertisements private, followed by similar actions from Shinhan Bank in the financial sector, fashion label Marithé François Girbaud, and education company Daesung Mimac. Notably, SSG.com proceeded with its decision even after Cha Eunwoo and his agency, Fantagio, had already issued official statements addressing the controversy.
The repercussions have extended beyond commercial endorsements. Content featuring Cha Eunwoo as a storyteller on “KFN Plus,” a YouTube channel operated by the Ministry of National Defense’s public relations arm, has also been set to private. This move has drawn particular attention given that Cha Eunwoo is currently serving his mandatory military duty.
The controversy stems from an intensive tax investigation conducted last year by the Seoul Regional Tax Office’s Investigation Bureau No. 4. Authorities suspect that Cha Eunwoo evaded taxes through a single-person agency established by his mother. According to reports, Fantagio and the family-run agency entered into service contracts for entertainment management, with Cha Eunwoo’s earnings distributed among the agency, Fantagio, and the artist himself.
However, tax authorities reportedly concluded that the agency founded by Cha Eunwoo’s mother functioned as a shell company that did not provide substantive services. Investigators believe this structure was used to reduce the tax burden by shifting income subject to a personal income tax rate of up to 45% to a corporate tax rate roughly 20 percentage points lower.
In response, Cha Eunwoo’s side stated that the core issue lies in whether the company established by his mother qualifies as a legitimate taxable entity. “This matter has not been finalized or officially confirmed,” the statement read. “We will actively explain our position through lawful procedures regarding the interpretation and application of tax law, and we will cooperate fully to ensure the process concludes swiftly.”
Four days after the allegations became public, Cha Eunwoo personally addressed fans and the public through social media, saying, “I sincerely apologize for causing concern and disappointment due to recent issues related to me. This has been an opportunity for deep reflection on whether I have been sufficiently strict in fulfilling my duty as a citizen to pay taxes.”
Fantagio also issued a follow-up statement, pledging to review and strengthen its artist management systems to prevent similar controversies in the future. On January 27, the agency released an additional clarification, emphasizing that the case remains under review by tax authorities. “The agency and the artist are cooperating fully within the scope required,” Fantagio said, adding that any necessary measures would be taken responsibly once legal and administrative judgments are finalized. The agency also urged the public to refrain from spreading unverified claims or excessive speculation.
Despite these efforts, the steady withdrawal of major brands across beauty, finance, fashion, and education suggests that Cha Eunwoo’s public image and commercial value continues to face significant pressure as the investigation unfolds.
Sources: Nate
You must be logged in to post a comment.