[Full text 1] Continued.
[The claim that Kim Soo Hyun ignored Kim Sae-ron's financial problems is not true.]
According to a report by the YouTube channel Garosero Institute, Kim Soo Hyun has become the devil that sent Kim Sae-ron to his death. The Garosero Institute claims that GOLDMEDALIST, Kim Soo Hyun's agency, demanded a debt that had to be paid due to the deceased's drunk driving accident, and that Kim Soo Hyun asked for help in response, but Kim Soo Hyun deflected. This led to continued speculation that Kim Sae-ron was forced to make a sad choice. However, this is not true. At the time, GOLDMEDALIST repaid the entire remaining debt, which Kim Sae-ron personally could not bear.
After the drunk driving incident, GOLDMEDALIST worked with Kim Sae-ron to settle various penalties related to her acting career, as well as compensation for damages to shops and other businesses damaged by the drunk driving. At the time, the scale of the penalty due to the accident was approximately 1,114 million won. In the process of determining the amount of compensation, our company tried to reduce the amount of compensation in order to minimize the burden on Kim Sae-ron. Through various efforts by Kim Sae-Ron to repay her debts, we subsequently reduced the remaining compensation to approximately 700 million. The process of reducing the amount also included repairing and selling her vehicle, which was badly damaged in a drunk driving accident. At the request of Kim Sae-ron, GOLDMEDALIST repaired and sold her vehicle, which was in an unserviceable condition, and compensated her for part of the damage. The claim by the informant who appeared on Garosero Institute that we took Kim Sae-ron's car is a distortion of this.
<Scale of penalties due to drunkenness accidents
Amount incurred by category
Keds (advertisement) 390 million won
Bloodhound (drama) 700 million won
Damaged shopping arcade: 24,361,852 KRW
Total 1,114,361,825 won
However, despite Kim Sae-ron's many efforts, her activities became difficult since the drunk driving accident and she had faced difficulties in realistically paying back the remaining amount. As a result, we had determined that Kim Sae-ron is not capable of repaying her debts any longer. Accordingly, the debt of Kim Sae-ron was treated as a loss compensation in December 2023 by our company. Our audit report dated 1 April 2024 confirms that the entire debt owed to Kim Sae-ron was treated as a bad debt.
In this process, we naturally had to comply with the legal procedures between our company and Kim Sae-ron. If we were to voluntarily pay the penalties owed to Mr Kim, the directors of our company who decided to do so would have been guilty of a breach of trust, and the relevant costs could not be recognised as a loss for the company. This was because, without any formalities and evidence for the amount of money lent to Kim Sae-ron without interest and security, the directors of our company could be considered to have given illegal benefits to a specific person.
In addition, at the beginning of 2024, we had to decide how to deal with the claim against Kim Sae-ron in the course of our accounting audit. According to the advice of the legal and accounting firms that conducted the audit at the time, if we treated the relevant amount as bad debt without any demand for payment, it would mean that we had unilaterally discharged the debt, which would cause damage to our company, and we were concerned that this would also constitute a breach of duty by our directors and officers. This was also because we were concerned about a breach of duty by a director of our company.
This meant that we had to prove that Kim Sae-ron was ‘irrecoverable’, meaning that she was not capable of paying back the amount she owed at the time. We therefore had to confirm that we had made efforts to secure our claim against her.
This is the reason why we sent a content-certified letter to Kim Sae-Ron. In order to follow the bad debt provision procedure against Mr Kim, we had to prove that we had not voluntarily waived our claim against Mr Kim by sending a proof of content. There was also the practical concern that she might have to pay a gift tax corresponding to the profit she would gain from the debt waiver. It is against this background that the email sent by Kim Sae-Ron to Kim Soo-Hyun on 19 March 2024 regarding her debt with our company was drafted. We had to go through the process to provide for the bad debts owed to Kim Soo Hyun via a content-certified letter.
<Article 36 of the Details Certificate Act>, which concerned the accounting firm.
Therefore, the whole issue of Kim Sae-Ron's debt was between GOLDMEDALIST and Kim Sae-Ron. It is speculation that Kim Soo-hyun personally lent money to Kim Sae-ron or that he tried to get this money urgently returned. Kim Soo Hyun never lent money to Mr Kim Sae-ron, there was no fact that he urged him to repay it, and he was not in such a position.
Kim Soo-Hyun was in a position away from the Company and did not have sufficient legal knowledge of the debt. Therefore, he sent an email to Kim Soo Hyun, not to the creditor. However, Kim Soo Hyun had no knowledge of the situation between our company and Kim Sae-ron. At the time, they had been separated for four years. Kim Soo Hyun asked the Company about the contents of Kim Sae Ron's mobile phone text messages, to which the Company replied to Kim Soo Hyun: ‘It does not seem appropriate to answer such a question without a specialist's confirmation, as the other party's legal knowledge is not accurate and there appears to be a misunderstanding. The company, together with legal experts, will contact Kim Soo Hyun's office and resolve the matter amicably to avoid any misunderstanding’, he replied. The company then explained the purpose of the content certificate, as attached.
Thereafter, on 26 March 2024, Kim Sae-ron's side stated through her legal representative that ‘I would like to thank your company for the sincerity you showed to my client last time and, of course, I would like to take responsibility for the damage you have suffered, and I would like to determine the amount of damage I have to bear and adjust the future repayment plan through consultations. I would like to determine the amount of damages that I have to bear and to adjust the future repayment plan through consultations’. With this, the relationship between GOLDMEDALIST and Sae-Ron Kim has been settled, and our company has not demanded any repayment since the entire amount of the claim against Sae-Ron Kim was treated as a bad debt.
Therefore, it can be assumed that Kim Sae-ron understood that she was completely out of debt to GOLDMEDALIST from her point of view. GOLDMEDALIST understands the difficult circumstances of Kim Sae-Ron, who was an actor with GOLDMEDALIST, and has taken all possible precautions to prevent the imposition of gift tax on Kim Sae-Ron without repayment of the loan. to take the greatest possible care in accordance with the law. In addition, in the process of paying the penalty on behalf of Kim Sae-ron, the interest was set at 0% and the late payment penalty was also set at 0%, while treating it as a loan. However, it is nothing short of heartbreaking that this was rather distorted and blamed as if we had pressured the repayment and maliciously abused as if this was the cause of the deceased's sad choice after one year had passed.
[Who is this privacy disclosure without consent for?
A photograph taken as an adult was changed to one taken at the age of 16. An acquaintance of the deceased's mother is changed to her aunt. After a strong visual rationale is presented that can only catch the eye, the content and time on which the rationale is based is cleverly changed. As a result, the image capturing one of the characters turns into a debt issue taken into consideration by the former firm, which rather turned into a pressure to pay back the money. So the debt problem of Kim Soo Hyun, which was sorted out by the company a year ago, is pointed out as the direct cause of the deceased's recent unfortunate death.
In the process, Kim Soo Hyun was identified as the source of the tragedy that greeted the deceased. Context is removed, facts are distorted on one basis to make someone a sinner, and everything is subject to condemnation because they are a sinner. Since the Kaseiken report, Kim Soo-hyun's entire past has been interpreted as if it were a deliberate misdeed. Along with the provocative images of other people's private lives leaked without permission, the claim that Kim Soo Hyun was dating the then 16-year-old Kim Sae-ron is repeated. In the process, false content is transformed into established facts and spread through the internet, leading to the derivation of countless fake news stories. It is almost impossible for the party who is the target of the accusations to refute them all, and even if they do, they have to devote enormous time and effort to sorting out the numerous grounds and materials. In the meantime, the parties suffer irreparable harm.
The photographs of the two men published by the Garosero Institute are true. However, that does not make the claims made by the Garosero Institute ‘true’. Throw in some evidence that can draw the gaze of the masses and remove the context behind it, and the truth is thereby distorted, and many people suffer. As I said earlier, the public gaze and criticism of the series of things regarding Kim Soo-hyun should naturally be accepted. However, it is not possible to unconditionally accept the numerous falsehoods and personal attacks on Kim Soo Hyun because she is a celebrity. The reactions that have been or may be made public about Kim Soo Hyun's personal life will have to be endured. But I would like to ask whether it is necessary for an adult to accept that something in the very private sphere of two people can be made public without their consent, and whether they have to experience all of this through their private lives being made public without their consent.
2025/03/14 14:02 KST
Copyrights(C) Herald wowkorea.jp 5
