Sunny Day

You are not correct about the age issue either.
Legally speaking, the age of consent in South Korea is 16. Therefore, the repeated claim that a relationship beginning when she was already 19 somehow occurred “as soon as she became legal” is factually inaccurate and does not align with the publicly discussed timeline.
You also seem to confuse the legal age of consent with the age of majority or marriage-related legal status. These are different legal concepts.
As for the age gap argument, age differences alone do not prove exploitation or misconduct. There are many well-known couples with significant age gaps, including cases where the woman is considerably older than the man: Namgoong Min & Jin Ah-reum, Baek Ji-young & Jung Suk-won, T-ARA’s Soyeon & Cho Yu-min, Shim Mina & Ryu Phillip, Gong Hyo-jin & Kevin Oh, Ham So-won & Chen Hua, and Ma Dong-seok & Ye Jung-hwa, among many others.
Disliking an age gap is a personal opinion. Labeling someone based on assumptions while ignoring the actual timeline and legal facts is something entirely different.

2019-2000=19, no matter how many times you try to repeat 18 years, the math will still give you 19

"I said this because they could’ve simply filed a lawsuit against gold medalist and Kim Soo hyun the company for debt they allegedly promised to cover and Kim Soo hyun for dating an underage girl...."
A correction must be made here: there was no legal basis for filing a complaint regarding either the deceased’s alleged debt or an alleged relationship that supposedly began when she was a minor, because the available information does not support either claim.
Regarding the debt, messages from the deceased’s manager reportedly indicate that an agreement had already been reached between Gold Medalist and the manager that no forced collection action would be pursued. A debt recovery impossibility procedure had allegedly already begun, which could ultimately result in the debt being written off.
As for the relationship, the evidence publicly discussed points to it beginning when Kim Sae-ron was already 19 years old, not when she was a minor.
If we look at her past relationships, it is publicly known that she had reportedly dated an idol group member at 15, and by 16 there were reports linking her to both an actor and a rapper. In 2018, she was reportedly involved in multiple relationships. Whether one agrees with it or not, portraying her as someone completely naïve or emotionally inexperienced is an oversimplification.
That said, I am not judging or condemning her. By many accounts, she had an extremely difficult environment and a family situation that may have contributed to serious emotional struggles. She was exposed to projects at a very young age that, for an actual child, could carry significant psychological consequences.
It is also publicly known that Kim Soo-hyun was reportedly in another relationship from around 2016. Despite being aware of this, Kim Sae-ron allegedly pursued contact with him. The often-repeated narrative about letters sent during military service is also misleading: there appears to be only one known letter from 2018, and it was not romantic in nature. Reports suggest that contact between them developed later, after Kim Soo-hyun’s previous relationship ended in 2019.
The issue here is simple: accusations this serious should be based on verified evidence, not assumptions, edited narratives, or retroactive interpretations.

"Weren’t the family member of the late actress the one who went to the YouTuber and also hired the legal representative? Why is it only the legal representative being the one booked for false accusations?"
Either you do not understand the legal implications, or you started posting messages with a very specific agenda. No one said that the family or other individuals are not involved, or that only the YouTuber and the lawyer are being accused. That conclusion has no factual basis and misrepresents what is actually being discussed.
A request for an arrest warrant does not mean that only the person targeted by that request is guilty. It means there are reasonable grounds to believe that the individual may obstruct the investigation, tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or repeat the alleged conduct, thereby posing a risk to the victim, the investigation, or society. Journalism carries a professional duty to verify information. There also appear to be claims that Kim Se-ui have intentions to destroy the evidence. This may explain why the deceased’s father reportedly did not hand over the phone. The request for an arrest warrant itself reportedly raised concerns about the risk of evidence being destroyed, and the device was never surrendered.
Similarly, the lawyer’s role is also being scrutinized. As a legal professional, he would have understood both the legal implications and the evidentiary value of messages, photos, or alleged AI recordings. What has been emphasized is that, although no complaint may initially have been filed against the lawyer, investigators reportedly concluded that he may have participated in the alleged conduct as an accomplice.
Being a journalist or a lawyer is not a shield from responsibility. On the contrary, professional expertise may increase accountability.
In conclusion, this is not a case involving only Kim Se-ui and the lawyer. According to the prosecutor's request for the arrest warrant, the deceased’s father and other individuals are also reportedly considered suspects. Responsibility and legal consequences will depend on each person’s role and level of participation in the alleged conduct.

In addition to the fact that your messages fall within the scope of criminal law, you are making false statements. The police were notified by the filing of a criminal complaint by Kim Soo-hyun. Not only did the police conclude that an arrest was necessary, but the prosecutor in the case found that there was a criminal act committed by the youtuber, the family lawyer and others, and an arrest warrant must be issued. This request will be approved or not by the court depending on the social danger represented by the person for whom the arrest warrant was proposed to be issued. It is a legal procedure, based on the evidence in the file, not on statements. Conclusion: KSH was not accused, KSH filed the complaint against those who committed criminal acts that may or may not prove to be crimes.

Legally speaking, the authenticity of evidence consists in the presentation of the original. The recording presented could not be technically examined by forensic experts because it was not the original to confirm authenticity. The impossibility of presenting the original can only be determined by the fact that there is no original. The logical conclusion is that it is a fake. Not to mention the fact that the very person who handed over this recording to the family later admitted that it was not authentic.

https://news.mydramalist.com/article/kim-soo-hyun-kim-sae-ron-controversy-takes-another-turn-as-police-call-allegations-false

Since some people are still spreading false information, I’m quoting from the prosecutors’ resolution, which states that it was established that Kim Soo-hyun and the deceased were not in a relationship when she was a minor.

“As the prosecution requested an arrest warrant for Kim Se-ui, head of Garo Sero Research Institute, who is accused of defaming actor Kim Soo-hyun, the police concluded through their investigation that the claim that Kim Soo-hyun and the late Kim Sae-ron dated while she was a minor was false.”
The police stated: “The suspect (the bereaved family’s lawyer) committed the crime in an organized and premeditated manner, not only by providing evidence related to the crime to CEO Kim and spreading false information, but also by amplifying and reproducing it.”
https://n.news.naver.com/article/025/0003524854?sid=102
The schadenfreudian joy is also ridiculous, considering that Kim Soo-hyun’s dramas, such as Queen of Tears and My Love from the Stars, were rebroadcast in Korea in May and attracted a sizable audience. Furthermore, Queen of Tears is one of the most-watched series in Netflix history, which makes the claims that KSH is “canceled” seem absurd.
And Knock-Off is coming!

Following the investigation into Kim Soo Hyun's case, it was concluded that the accusations were based on falsified evidence, allegedly involving the direct participation of Kim Se ui. According to the findings, Kim Soo Hyun's photo was inserted into KakaoTalk messages involving an unidentified contact in order to create the impression that the actor was the person with whom the deceased had been in a relationship at that time.
Although Kim Se ui allegedly knew the truth, he nevertheless presented the falsified evidence and publicly accused the actor during his YouTube broadcasts and at a press conference.
The deceased's family did not hand over the phone containing the relevant messages, despite the investigation team's request that all evidence previously presented in public be submitted. The only material reportedly provided by the deceased's side was a copied recording, which allegedly turned out to have been manipulated using AI.
The family's lawyer was also reportedly identified as a possible accomplice, and prosecutors may be asked to take ex officio action in order to determine the nature of the alleged 20% stipulated in the legal assistance agreement, particularly given that no clear legal action appears to have been undertaken to justify such a fee, especially considering that the contract was signed before the presentation of the allegedly falsified evidence and the public accusations against KSH.
For these reasons, on Tuesday, 26.05.2026, at 10:30 a.m., the proposal to arrest Kim Se ui will be examined. If the court considers that his release poses a risk, Kim Se ui may be taken into custody. If the court determines that the investigation can continue without detention, the arrest request may not be approved. However, this would not necessarily mean that Kim Se ui and the family would avoid potential charges.
According to the investigation's conclusions, the picture appears to be becoming increasingly clear. We may be approaching the moment when the bill is finally placed on the table for those who, until now, have treated Kim Soo Hyun's suffering as entertainment.
The party is over, but the bill is just around the corner.

https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20260520183100004

Your reply is based on a false premise. First, it was not KSH who asked her to move the car, but the restaurant manager. Second, asking the owner to move a car does not automatically mean the owner had to drive it while intoxicated. She could have asked any sober person nearby to move it, but for reasons known only to her, she chose to do it herself. That subject itself is tragic, and there is no point in discussing it. Anyway your message is just a pathetic lie
And no, I do not keep a “library of links.” I simply believe that when someone makes a public claim, it should be researched first. After all, above the keyboard there should be more than just the hands that type.

Yes, I saw it, and I'm not the only one, so let's let her play with the keyboard.

Recent developments in the lawsuits filed by companies that had endorsement contracts with Kim Soo-hyun show there was no clear legal basis for terminating those contracts. None of the companies has convincingly justified its claims, and the cases have been repeatedly suspended or removed from the court schedule. Claims that these companies cannot challenge him because he is wealthy are unfounded, since the companies themselves have far greater financial resources than he does.
On April 10, the case filed by Cuckoo Electronics did not proceed because the court had previously ordered the plaintiff to clarify its claims. When Cuckoo failed to submit that clarification, the court removed the case from the hearing list and gave the company until May 8 to comply; otherwise, the case may be dismissed.
Likewise, the hearing scheduled for April 24 in the case filed by Dinto did not move forward. Earlier, the court had required Dinto to prove that it suffered damage, that the damage was caused by KSH, and that he was legally responsible. Instead of providing that evidence, Dinto requested suspension of the case pending the outcome of the related criminal proceedings, suggesting concern about the strength of its claim.
The remaining cases are also suspended pending the police investigation. Since neither the family nor Garo0 has produced verifiable evidence, and several key allegations have already been challenged, it appears increasingly likely that the accusations against Kim Soo-hyun will eventually be shown to be false.
A further consequence is that the companies that suspended their claims could later seek damages from those they believe caused the controversy, namely the family and Garo0.

When you want justice, you don't wait for someone to listen to you, but you file a complaint against the guilty party because there are legal institutions that ensure the investigation in such cases. Considering that it was the family of the deceased who publicized the case, the same family had the opportunity to prove what they said during the investigations by presenting all the evidence and witnesses they referred to publicly. They already made a complaint against him based on a recording, so they can prove their allegations by supplementing with other original evidence, if they do not have the original recording, and the recording is not manipulated with AI. This was ruled by the Supreme Court in 2025.
When seeking justice, one does not wait for public attention but files a complaint with the competent authorities, which are responsible for investigating such cases.
Since the deceased’s family themselves made the case public and have already filed a complaint, they now have the opportunity to prove their allegations by submitting all relevant evidence and identifying the witnesses they referred to. This includes presenting the recording in its original form or, if unavailable, supporting it with other reliable evidence, provided it has not been altered or manipulated, including through AI.
As held by the Supreme Court in 2025, a copy may still have evidentiary value if it faithfully reflects the original, as determined through a comprehensive assessment of the circumstances.
https://www.shinkim.com/eng/media/newsletter/2796;shinkimfront=613B8C80288D607512F00F25DBED5184#:~:text=On%20February%2027%2C%202025%2C%20the,original%20can%20be%20sufficiently%20established.

All these prior cases, together with the conviction of Kim Se-ui in the Tzuyang case, may raise doubts as to the credibility of the accusations made against KSH. However, they do not, in themselves, establish that those accusations are untrue.
At this stage, neither the deceased’s family nor Garo0 have publicly presented verifiable evidence capable of substantiating their claims. In the absence of such evidence, the allegations remain unproven.
However, the question of truth or falsity ultimately falls within the competence of the judicial authorities. If it is established that false accusations were made, this may lead to legal consequences for those responsible (Garo0&comp).

From a legal standpoint, the debt is to be borne by the heirs of the deceased. In this case, the heirs would be the parents and siblings.
It must also be taken into account that the funds originated from a company, which requires compliance with the applicable legal and accounting procedures to avoid any risk of the transaction being qualified as embezzlement or tax evasion, as the case may be.
However, to my knowledge, proceedings had already been initiated to address the impossibility of recovering the debt, including the debtor’s (KSR’s) insolvency.

Do you refer to the period surrounding her DUI incident?
Because the available public information points to personal circumstances that are not, in any verifiable way, connected to KSH.
For instance, reports describe her behavior after the incident:
https://www.asiae.co.kr/en/article/2023040507394587840
https://www.allkpop.com/article/2022/11/kim-sae-rons-agency-has-no-comment-on-the-actress-throwing-a-birthday-party-with-drinks-two-months-after-her-dui-charges
Other reports relate to her personal life prior to the incident:
which led her to drink and drive under the influence of alcohol?
https://www.koreaboo.com/news/new-details-kim-sae-ron-relationship-alleged-idol-boyfriend-exposed/
https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/web-series/who-is-lee-chan-hee-kim-sae-rons-ex-boyfriend-revealed-as-popular-k-pop-survival-show-member-9910336/
https://kbizoom.com/kim-saeron-dating-history-scandal/
https://kbizoom.com/a-minor-who-drank-alcohol-and-smoked-kim-sae-rons-past-photos/
https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/2025-05-21/entertainment/television/Timeline-of-Kim-Saerons-relationships-raises-questions-on-authenticity-of-familys-abuse-claims/2312406
Even taken together, these do not establish any causal link between KSH and her actions. Without concrete evidence, attributing responsibility to him remains purely speculative.

Reproducing allegations circulated in the online environment, to which elements of hostility are added, only serves to obscure the objective reality. If the new leadership, represented by the current government, had provided any form of support to KSH, the investigation would, by now, have been finalized and the case file submitted to the competent prosecutors for confirmation or infirmation of its conclusions. Consequently, such a hypothesis lacks both a logical foundation and any factual substantiation.
The assertion that KSH will be exonerated as a result of a change in government raises a preliminary and essential question: exonerated of what? To date, the deceased’s family has lodged a single complaint against him, reportedly based on an audio recording that was not submitted in its original form for forensic examination, as required under Article 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
However, even assuming that the recording is not presented in its original format, this does not automatically exclude its evidentiary value. Provided that the recording has not been altered or manipulated, it may still constitute admissible evidence. In 2025, the Supreme Court held that the determination of whether a copy faithfully reflects the original, in the absence of artificial modification, must be made through a comprehensive assessment of all relevant circumstances, including testimonies or statements from individuals involved in the creation, transmission, and storage of the file.
https://www.shinkim.com/eng/media/newsletter/2796;shinkimfront=613B8C80288D607512F00F25DBED5184#:~:text=On%20February%2027%2C%202025%2C%20the,original%20can%20be%20sufficiently%20established.
In this context, the appropriate procedural course would be the submission of all such evidence in its original form for proper examination by the competent authorities. But, the original KakaoTalk messages have not been submitted, the referenced letters have not been produced, and the alleged witnesses have not been identified so as to be heard in accordance with procedural requirements.
Criminal investigations are grounded in evidence, not in speculation or unverified assertions. Accordingly, no question of “exoneration” can meaningfully arise in the absence of sufficient evidence capable of supporting a conviction.

Yes, you are right. If the complaint is based on Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the person filing it must prove that the statements made about him are false.
In this case, Kim Soo-hyun would therefore need to demonstrate, by any admissible means of evidence, that the allegations are untrue.
By filing such a complaint, he also assumes a significant legal risk. If a person brings a claim under Article 307(2) (defamation by false statements), but the statements are ultimately proven to be true, he may be exposed to liability under Article 156 of the Criminal Act (false accusation).

Let’s review the outcomes of cases closely related to Kim Soo-hyun’s case.
The deceased’s former manager confirmed Kim Soo-hyun’s claims at a press conference about the so-called pressure of the obligation to repay the loan. It was clarified that Gold Medalist or KSH was not compelled KSR to repay the interest-free loan from Gold Medalist. The procedure was entirely legal: the funds came from the company, which is not a banking institution issuing loans, so documentation was required to justify the postponement of repayment. This was especially relevant because she was no longer affiliated with Gold Medalist.
Kim Se-ui also filed a complaint against Kim Soo-hyun’s fandom for publicly accusing him of spreading lies and defaming him. However, the police dismissed his complaint. Conversely, KSH fans filed a complaint against Lee Jung-seop for spreading false information and defaming Kim Soo-hyun; the police confirmed the validity of the complaint and referred the case to prosecutors.
Additionally, the former art director at Gold Medalist testified to police that the photo used by the deceased’s family and Kim Se-ui to allege that KSH sent messages on KakaoTalk to the deceased was actually taken in 2020. This confirms that the messages attributed to Kim Soo-hyun could not have originated from him, leaving the deceased’s family and Kim Se-ui to explain why the sender was falsified.
Key developments include:
1. Lee Jung-seop was accused of spreading false information and defaming Kim Soo-hyun on social media following controversies involving Kim Sae-ron in 2025.
https://www.mk.co.kr/en/hot-issues/11956123
2. YouTuber Kwon Young-chan, who raised allegations of "embezzlement of hospital bills" and "grooming" against K, the late KSR’s former manager, was referred to the prosecution on charges of defamation under the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection.
https://m.entertain.naver.com/home/article/416/0000321380?spi_ref=m_entertain_x
3. The defamation complaint filed by Kim Se-ui (operator of Garo Sero Research Institute) against Kim Soo-hyun’s fan union was rejected by police.
https://www.allkpop.com/article/2026/01/defamation-complaint-filed-by-kim-se-eui-against-kim-soo-hyun-fan-union-dismissed-without-charges
4. The director who took Kim Soo-hyun’s profile photo confirmed that it was captured on April 3, 2020, and publicly released on June 15, 2020. Metadata from the original file was submitted as evidence. Therefore, the photo could not have appeared in KakaoTalk messages allegedly exchanged with the deceased in 2016. If the photo was inserted to misrepresent the conversation partner as KSH, the 2016 messages are demonstrably fabricated.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DP06o83j11s/?igsh=ZXZ5cTV3a3o0MXF2
With all the facts revealed… guess what’s next?

https://kbizoom.com/kim-soo-hyun-2-8-billion-lawsuit/#google_vignette
https://m.entertain.naver.com/home/article/311/0001985526
https://www.xportsnews.com/article/2122851