Actor Kim Soo-hyun and the late Kim Sae-ron are at the center of intense scrutiny following allegations and revelations about their past relationship, amid claims from Kim Sae-ron's family. At the heart of the controversy is the assertion made by Kim Sae-ron's legal representative during a press conference on March 17, 2025, outside the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency. According to lawyer Bu Ji-seok, after receiving the first content verification from her agency, Kim Sae-ron allegedly sent a message to Kim Soo-hyun, saying, 'I'm only alive.' This disturbing statement highlights the level of distress reportedly faced by Kim Sae-ron before her untimely death.
Bu Ji-seok claimed Kim Soo-hyun's response was to send out the second content verification, reinforcing claims of financial compensation disputes between them. He described this response as effectively pressuring Kim Sae-ron by stating she needed to repay her debts, and it insinuated legal actions would follow should Kim Sae-ron not comply.
Tragically, Kim Sae-ron's family stated they discovered the second piece of correspondence on March 25, 2024, when they were going through her belongings after her passing. They emphasized how no contact was made by Kim Soo-hyun following this notice, which only exacerbated the emotional turmoil experienced by Kim Sae-ron.
Kim Soo-hyun's agency, Gold Medalist, issued its own official 12-page statement later on March 18, 2025, refuting the pressures alleged by Kim Sae-ron’s family. They explained the second content verification was aimed at clarifying Kim Sae-ron's financial obligations and was entirely professional, maintaining they simply requested her to avoid contacting fellow actors to mitigate compensation issues.
Gold Medalist also insisted the content verification was intended to inform Kim Sae-ron of its potential impact on drama production due to her social media activity. The agency refuted allegations of dating Kim Sae-ron before she turned 20, asserting their relationship began only after the actress reached adulthood. They categorically denied any inappropriate behavior, emphasizing they had no knowledge of any supposed romantic involvement during Kim Sae-ron’s minor years.
The tension escalated as Kim Sae-ron's family announced plans for digital forensics to recover past photos purportedly proving the timeline of their dating relationship started earlier than Gold Medalist claims. Frustration over the lack of acknowledgment from Kim Soo-hyun prompted Kim Sae-ron's family to question why they had not received any public apology from him.
On the same day, Kim Sae-ron's family described their disappointment with Gold Medalist's stance, stating they had hoped for at least one apology from the actor but felt betrayed instead. Legal representatives indicated they would provide evidentiary material to support their case, which claims the two were involved romantically during Kim Sae-ron's youth.
The agency also addressed accusations relating to Kim Sae-ron's drunk driving incident earlier, stating they helped reduce her financial liabilities from approximately 700 million KRW to manageable levels and criticized the claims of misconduct as unfounded.
This controversy feeds off the backdrop of societal issues surrounding celebrity culture and how it intersects with personal crises. Following Kim Sae-ron’s tragic passing, her family voiced concerns about the pressures and invasions of privacy she encountered during her life, particularly from YouTube channels disclosing sensitive content.
Despite calling for enhanced scrutiny and accountability of media practices, the debate about privacy versus public interest continues. Key voices within the entertainment industry, such as Kwon Young-chan from the Korea Entertainment Performers Association Relief Association, highlighted the ethical dilemmas and the challenges celebrities face under intense media scrutiny.
With the story still developing, the legacy of Kim Sae-ron’s life intertwines with questions about the responsibilities of the entertainment industry and the treatment of its members. Both parties remain entrenched in their views, providing little indication of reconciliation at this stage.
The conflict raises broader questions on how the media navigates the overlap of celebrity situations and public interest, particularly when the boundaries of personal and professional lives blur under scrutiny.
Looking toward the future, the involvement of digital forensic evidence may shed light on the truth of these relationships and how they were portrayed publicly. It remains to be seen how this will impact and redefine not just those involved, but the larger narrative around fame and responsibility within the entertainment industry.
