Family Errands, Plastic Surgery, And More — Dispatch Drops Shocking Bombshell On Park Na Rae’s Controversy

The controversy surrounding broadcaster Park Na Rae has increasingly shifted away from emotional reactions and into a closer examination of conduct, responsibilities, and boundaries between celebrity and staff. While public discourse initially focused on reports of a former manager’s emotional distress, those close to the situation argue that this framing misses the true core of the issue.

According to Dispatch‘s exposé dropped on January 13, 2026, the dispute did not originate from a sudden change of heart by Park Na Rae’s former managers, nor from isolated incidents taken out of context. Instead, it is being characterized as the result of a pattern of requests and expectations that accumulated over time, many of which extended beyond what would typically be considered professional duties.

One of the earliest incidents cited occurred on November 4, 2023, during preparations for the Taiwan episode of I Live Alone. Park Na Rae and her manager had already completed immigration at Incheon International Airport and were set to board their morning flight when she asked the manager to leave the secure area, return to her Itaewon home, and retrieve a Chanel bag. At the time, Park Na Rae was already carrying a Gucci bag, and the Chanel item was not designated as a broadcast prop. She sent manager A to fetch it.

The request required the manager to cancel departure clearance, exit the airport under false pretenses, and rebook a later flight, arriving in Taiwan hours after the production team.

Park Na Rae: “How did it go?”
A: “The earliest flight is 5.10 pm. Arrival in Taipei at 7.10 pm.”
Park Na Rae: “Where was the bag” On the dining table? We just arrived in Taiwan and are waiting for immigration.”
A: “It was in front of the master bedroom bathroom.”
Park Na Rae: “Huh? The master bathroom? Did a ghost put it there or something?”
A: “Have a safe trip. I’ll stay in contact with the writer.”

Despite the disruption, the two continued to communicate throughout the day, with additional errands layered on, including inquiries about purchasing luxury items at the airport duty-free shop. Park asked her manager to help her buy mens’ shoes.

Park Na Rae: “By the way, does the Hermes at the airport duty-free have those shoes?”
A: “They don’t have size 285. They said it needs to be ordered.”
Park Na Rae: “Can you order it?”
A: “Since it’s a 2-night, 3-day trip, the return flight timing needs to match the order.”
Park Na Rae: “So it’s difficult?”
A: “Only one staff member is here now. I’ll ask again when the branch manager arrives.”

While the exchanges show politeness and expressions of gratitude, critics argue that courtesy does not negate the nature of the requests themselves. Former managers have acknowledged that some errands might be dismissed as part of the job. However, they contend that other incidents crossed more serious lines. Among the most troubling claims are allegations involving proxy medical prescriptions. According to messages and records now disclosed, both female managers were asked to visit obstetrics and gynecology clinics to obtain medication on Park Na Rae’s behalf, so that it could be taken before filming.

These visits allegedly required the managers to use their own medical records, raising concerns about privacy and potential violations of medical law. The managers were upset as it would cause their own medical reports to be affected, which could affect their lives in the future. One manager complained that if her future husband saw her records, it could harm her.

A: “She asked us to buy O medication from OB-GYN. It must be taken before filming.”
B: “Do I need to receive the consultation myself…? Messing up my medical records is f***ing awful.”
A: “Ask them not to leave a record. I should’ve gone myself… sorry.”
B: “This is Na Rae’s fault — why are you apologizing? Tell her to treat us properly. Seriously.”

Beyond medical matters, the scope of errands reportedly expanded into personal and family affairs. The managers claim they scheduled health checkups for Park Na Rae’s younger brother, arranged cosmetic surgery consultations for her mother’s friend, purchased alcohol by brand and quantity for private gatherings, and even sourced live seafood late at night. Over time, they describe a workload that blended professional management with domestic labor, often without proper rest.

Manager: “Can we schedule a consultation for nose and eye drooping surgery for Na Rae’s mother’s friend?”
Clinic: “Can you send front and side photos?”
Manager: [Photos]
Clinic: “We’ll show them to the doctor.”

Financial scrutiny has also become a focal point. While some media outlets framed corporate card usage as excessive or suspicious, investigative reporting indicates that most expenses were immediately shared with Park Na Rae and questioned when unfamiliar. Manager B spent ₩67.1 million KRW (about $45,700 USD) during the same period, large amounts for company dinners, smaller ones for snacks. Corporate card transactions were immediately forwarded to Park Na Rae.

Examples include:

• Naepyeonhaja team dinner ₩1.50 million KRW (about $1,020 USD) (March)
• Boom’s baby 100th day gift ₩1.32 million KRW (about $900 USD) (March)
• Gag Concert team dinner ₩3.40 million KRW (about $2,320 USD) (May)
• Park Na Rae’s airfare ₩1.75 million KRW (about $1,190 USD) (May)

A notable charge for cosmetic procedures was later linked not to a staff member, but to treatment received by Park Na Rae’s mother, paid through a corporate card.

A: “After your mother’s procedure and picking up medication, it’ll be around 5 pm.”
Park Na Rae: “Thank you.”
A: “The director gave a discount; total payment was ₩3.60 million KRW (about $2,450 USD).”
Park Na Rae: “Okay. Thank you.”

Buying side dishes for drinking sessions with her boyfriend was also the managers’ job.

Park Na Rae: “B, one box of Ssal Beni and two boxes of Hwayo!”
Park Na Rae: “Sorry, but could you also get six beers? Thank you”
Park Na Rae: “Can you buy live abalone and live octopus at Mapo Fish Market?”

As legal actions escalate on both sides, the former managers have stated they are prepared to face consequences for any wrongdoing of their own. Still, they argue that focusing solely on emotional reactions, alleged “reversals,” or character attacks obscures the larger question: where the line should be drawn between professional management and personal servitude in the entertainment industry.