The controversy swirling around the late actress Kim Sae-ryeon and whistleblower Kim Su-hyun has grown into a tangled web of legal battles, public accusations, and intense media scrutiny, with both sides fiercely defending their narratives. The dispute, which centers on allegations of fabricated evidence, wrongful pressure, and media manipulation, has drawn in broadcasters, legal teams, and even YouTube personalities, all vying to shape the public’s understanding of a tragedy that has gripped South Korea’s entertainment scene.
On December 1, 2025, Kim Su-hyun, a legal scholar and whistleblower, made a pointed statement during a youth probe panel, declaring, “I have no difficulty in whistleblowing and had no intention to hide the truth.” According to NEWSIS, Kim Su-hyun emphasized his desire for a swift conclusion to the ongoing whistleblowing investigation, assuring that he would not be uncomfortable with the process as long as it was handled with responsibility. This was just the latest chapter in a saga that has pitted Kim Su-hyun against the family and legal representatives of the late Kim Sae-ryeon.
The drama escalated after the abrupt cancellation of an episode of SBS’s investigative program, Suspicious Story Y, which was set to air details of the dispute between Kim Sae-ryeon and Kim Su-hyun. The family of Kim Sae-ryeon, through their legal representative Bae-yun, voiced concerns over what they described as a “fabrication frame” being imposed by Kim Su-hyun’s team. “Do not frame us with fabrication for your own career,” Bae-yun urged, as reported by Segye Ilbo. He further called for patience until the results of the ongoing investigation were made public, adding that all of Kim Sae-ryeon’s electronic devices had been turned over to authorities and that the family had refrained from further media engagement at the authorities’ recommendation.
But the tensions didn’t stop there. The legal teams exchanged heated words over the handling of evidence and the public narrative. Bae-yun accused Kim Su-hyun’s legal counsel, attorney Ko Sang-rok, of pressuring broadcasters and threatening legal action if certain evidence was aired. According to Bae-yun, “Attorney Ko, after reviewing some of the materials we provided, suddenly demanded that they not be disclosed. He threatened civil and criminal action if the materials were revealed to the public.” This, the family claimed, forced them to break their silence and issue a public statement on November 26, 2025.
Attorney Ko, for his part, categorically denied these accusations. In a statement on his YouTube channel, Ko insisted, “I have no power to stop a broadcast, nor have I ever attempted to do so. I was merely informed by the broadcaster that the program would be postponed, and I actually said, ‘As long as my rebuttal is properly included, I am reassured.’” Ko also lamented what he described as a “desperate attempt” to protect his client from further harm, rejecting the notion that he acted out of self-interest or to shield his own career. “The bereaved family never claimed or thought that the deceased suffered because of Kim Su-hyun,” he pressed, challenging the opposing side to answer several pointed questions he had previously raised.
The backdrop to these public exchanges is a deeply personal and painful tragedy. Kim Sae-ryeon, a rising star, was found dead in her Seongdong-gu, Seoul home on February 16, 2025—coincidentally, Kim Su-hyun’s birthday. Her family, devastated by her loss, took to the controversial YouTube channel Galesero Research Institute to release photos, texts, and letters that allegedly documented a six-year relationship between Kim Sae-ryeon and Kim Su-hyun, dating back to her time as a minor. The family also engaged in a public dispute with Kim Sae-ryeon’s former agency, Gold Medalist, over a 700 million won penalty related to a drunk driving incident involving the late actress.
Kim Su-hyun, meanwhile, has consistently denied any romantic involvement with Kim Sae-ryeon during her minor years and rejected claims that his actions or those of his agency contributed to her tragic decision. At a press conference on March 31, 2025, he stated, “I did not date the deceased when she was a minor. It is also not true that my indifference or the agency’s pressure regarding her debts led to her tragic choice.” Backed by his legal team, Kim Su-hyun has filed civil and criminal lawsuits against Kim Sae-ryeon’s family and Kim Se-ui, the operator of Galesero Research Institute, seeking damages totaling 12 billion won and alleging defamation under the Information and Communications Network Act.
Adding to the complexity, Yoo Jung-beom, a YouTuber and broadcaster known for his channel Jangsa-ui Sin, has publicly weighed in on the matter, particularly the ongoing investigation into Kim Se-ui, the head of Galesero Research Institute. Yoo, who has himself been embroiled in legal disputes with Kim Se-ui, revealed that he had been summoned for questioning three times by Gangnam Police—an unusually high number, as he noted. “It’s rare to be called in for questioning three times,” Yoo explained, “but I’ll cooperate as many times as needed if it helps clarify the case.” Yoo’s legal battles with Kim Se-ui have included accusations of broadcast manipulation, defamation, and a protracted fight over the control of Galesero Research Institute, including a court-approved injunction to freeze 120 million won in the institute’s accounts.
The investigation has also seen its share of procedural twists. Yoo accused Kim Se-ui of continuing live broadcasts without substantial evidence, causing significant reputational harm to celebrities and broadcasters alike. In response, Kim Se-ui’s camp has dismissed these allegations as “blatantly false,” maintaining that Kim remains the institute’s CEO and that Yoo’s attempts to gain control have been rebuffed at shareholder meetings.
Meanwhile, the authorities have acknowledged delays in the investigation, citing the complexity and breadth of the allegations. At a recent parliamentary hearing, police admitted that the case had been slowed by its division among multiple departments but assured that a dedicated task force had been established to consolidate and expedite the remaining investigations.
Amid all the legal wrangling, one thing is clear: both sides are determined to defend their reputations and their version of events. Kim Su-hyun and his supporters maintain that the whistleblowing was genuine, not a fabrication, and that all evidence—photos, documents, and testimonies—has been made available for scrutiny. The family of Kim Sae-ryeon, on the other hand, continues to insist that their disclosures were made in good faith and that any suggestion of evidence tampering is an attempt to discredit their grief and pursuit of the truth.
As the investigation proceeds and the courts weigh the competing claims, the public is left to sift through a torrent of statements, counter-statements, and legal filings. The outcome may hinge not only on the evidence presented but also on the willingness of all parties to allow the process to unfold without undue interference or media spectacle. For now, the questions remain, and the search for answers continues.
