On March 14, his agency, Gold Medalist, issued an official statement addressing the allegations. The statement firmly denied the claims, emphasizing that “it is not true that Kim Soo-hyun dated Kim Sae-ron while she was still a minor.” The agency aimed to clarify the timeline of their relationship and dispel any misunderstandings surrounding the issue.
Kim Soo-hyun and Kim Sae-ron dated from summer 2019 to fall 2020, after she had reached adulthood. Claims that they were in a relationship when she was a minor are false. The photos presented by Garo Sero to support these allegations were actually taken in 2019 and 2020, not in 2016 as claimed.
Regarding Kim Sae-ron’s financial struggles, reports that Kim Soo-hyun ignored her pleas for help are untrue. Gold Medalist covered her remaining debts after her DUI accident, reducing her financial burden. The claim that the company seized her car is also false. The total damages from her contract violations and compensation amounted to 1.1 billion KRW (approximately 756,000 USD), but by December 2023, Gold Medalist wrote off the remaining debt as a financial loss.
Full Statement from Gold Medalist
Hello, this is Gold Medalist.
We are releasing Kim Soo-hyun’s official statement regarding the recent reports by Garo Sero Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as “Garo Sero”). Initially, we planned to issue a response next week, supported by verifiable evidence to refute their claims.
Advertisement
However, early this morning, Kim Soo-hyun showed signs of extreme psychological distress. Our priority was to ensure his well-being and provide him with immediate support. Since the Garo Sero broadcast, Kim Soo-hyun has been deeply shaken by accusations that he was responsible for the tragic passing of the deceased. Additionally, on the night of March 12, following Garo Sero’s broadcast, individuals with cameras remained stationed near the company’s main entrance and parking lot until the early hours of the morning. On March 13, around noon, more individuals were seen lingering around the building with cameras, further intensifying the psychological pressure on Kim Soo-hyun.
Due to these urgent circumstances, we have decided to release this statement earlier than planned to clarify the truth regarding key issues. We ask for your understanding, as addressing this matter promptly took priority over perfecting every detail of our response.
Regarding the Dating Allegations Between Kim Soo-hyun and Kim Sae-ron
Kim Soo-hyun and Kim Sae-ron were in a relationship from the summer of 2019 to the fall of 2020, after Kim Sae-ron had already reached adulthood. The claim that Kim Soo-hyun dated Kim Sae-ron while she was a minor is completely false.
The photos shared by Kim Sae-ron on her Instagram Story on March 24, 2024, and those revealed by Garo Sero on March 11, 2025, were all taken on the same day during the winter of 2020, when they were dating. The outfit Kim Sae-ron was wearing in those photos was released by a brand in June 2019, making it impossible for the photos to have been taken in 2016, as Garo Sero falsely claimed.
Additionally, another photo released by Garo Sero on March 12, 2025, was taken on December 24, 2019, Christmas Eve. We have secured the metadata for this photo (attached below). The photos released on March 13, showing the same outfit, were also taken on the same day.
Every single photo that Garo Sero used as “evidence” to claim that Kim Soo-hyun dated Kim Sae-ron while she was a minor was, in reality, taken after she had become an adult. There are no “2016 photos” as they claim because the two were not in a relationship at that time.
Furthermore, the letter Kim Soo-hyun sent to Kim Sae-ron during his military service was one of many he wrote to close acquaintances. As seen in the content, he was adjusting to military life and often shared detailed accounts of his daily routine with friends. Expressions of longing (“I miss you”) were commonly used by soldiers in letters to close friends. However, Garo Sero falsely claimed that Kim Soo-hyun and Kim Sae-ron had been dating since 2015 and deliberately manipulated the timeline by presenting photos from her adult years as if they were from her teenage years. They also placed a regular letter alongside a postcard sent later during their relationship to create the illusion of a romantic connection throughout that time. Additionally, the nickname Kim Sae-ron publicly used on social media since 2016 was misrepresented as a private pet name used only between the two.
We acknowledge that Kim Soo-hyun, as a public figure, is subject to scrutiny. While his past relationship with Kim Sae-ron falls within his personal life, we understand that public figures are held to high standards and must take responsibility for their actions, even when faced with harsh criticism. However, Garo Sero’s report has spread an alarming amount of misinformation, causing immense distress.
The primary informant who appeared on Garo Sero’s broadcast and made numerous false claims introduced themselves as a member of Kim Sae-ron’s family. However, according to a media report, this individual is actually an acquaintance of Kim Sae-ron’s mother, not a direct family member. Despite their unclear identity, Garo Sero spread rumors based on their statements, manipulated photographs, and failed to verify facts with the individuals involved.
This invasion of privacy has led to the forced exposure of highly personal matters, inflicting immense pain not only on Kim Soo-hyun but also on the late Kim Sae-ron and their loved ones. While we recognize that public reactions to this situation are inevitable, it is deeply distressing that the narrative of their relationship has been distorted, with countless falsehoods continuing to spread. No one should have to endure such suffering due to misrepresented personal history. Furthermore, digging into the private life of a deceased person and damaging their honor is unethical and deeply concerning.
The Claim That Kim Soo-hyun Ignored Kim Sae-ron’s Financial Struggles Is False
Due to Garo Sero’s report, Kim Soo-hyun has been falsely portrayed as a villain who drove Kim Sae-ron to her tragic end. Garo Sero alleged that Gold Medalist pressured Kim Sae-ron to pay off debts related to her DUI incident and that she sought financial help from Kim Soo-hyun, only to be ignored. This narrative has led to baseless speculation that financial distress pushed her to an extreme decision.
However, this claim is entirely false. Gold Medalist covered the remaining outstanding debts that Kim Sae-ron could not afford to pay.
Following Kim Sae-ron’s DUI accident, Gold Medalist worked with her to resolve various financial obligations, including contract penalties related to her acting career and compensation for business owners affected by the incident. Initially, the total compensation amounted to approximately 1.14 billion KRW (approximately 784,000 USD). Gold Medalist made every effort to minimize the burden on Kim Sae-ron during negotiations, ultimately reducing the amount to around 700 million KRW (approximately 480,000 USD).
As part of this process, Kim Sae-ron’s heavily damaged vehicle was repaired and sold to cover part of the compensation costs. This decision was made based on her request, as the vehicle was no longer operable. Garo Sero’s claim that Gold Medalist “seized” her car is a complete misrepresentation of these events.
By December 2023, after continuous efforts to support her, Gold Medalist officially wrote off the remaining unpaid debt as a financial loss. This contradicts Garo Sero’s assertion that she was relentlessly pursued for debt repayment.
We strongly denounce the spread of false information and the unethical misrepresentation of private matters. Gold Medalist will continue to protect the truth and take all necessary actions against those who propagate malicious rumors.
The Scale of Penalty Fees Due to a Drunk Driving Accident
However, despite many efforts, Ms. Kim Sae-ron faced difficulties in continuing her activities after the drunk driving accident and found herself in a situation where it was realistically impossible to repay the remaining amount. As a result, our company determined that Ms. Kim Sae-ron no longer had the ability to repay her debt. Accordingly, our company processed Ms. Kim Sae-ron’s debt as a loss recovery in December 2023.
Looking at our company’s audit report dated April 1, 2024, it is confirmed that the entire receivable from Ms. Kim Sae-ron was written off as bad debt. Naturally, throughout this process, our company and Ms. Kim Sae-ron had to comply with legal procedures. If our company had arbitrarily taken responsibility for the penalty fees that Ms. Kim Sae-ron was supposed to bear, there was a possibility that the executives who made this decision could be held accountable for breach of duty. Additionally, there was a concern that the associated costs would not be recognized as deductible expenses for the company. This is because, if the amount lent to Ms. Kim Sae-ron without interest or collateral was handled without any procedures or documentation, it could be deemed that the company’s executives had unlawfully granted a specific individual an improper financial benefit.
Furthermore, in early 2024, during our company’s financial audit, we had to decide how to handle the receivables related to Ms. Kim Sae-ron. According to the advice from the law firm and accounting firm conducting the audit at the time, if our company were to write off the amount as bad debt without making any debt collection efforts against Ms. Kim Sae-ron, it could be seen as an act of unilaterally waiving her debt, thereby causing financial loss to the company. This, again, raised concerns about the company executives’ potential liability for breach of duty.
As a result, it was necessary to prove that Ms. Kim Sae-ron was in a “non-recoverable” state, meaning she was unable to repay the debt at that time. Therefore, it had to be verified that our company had made efforts to secure its receivables from Ms. Kim Sae-ron.
This was the reason our company sent a certified letter to Ms. Kim Sae-ron. In order to proceed with the bad debt provision process regarding Ms. Kim Sae-ron, we needed to send a certified letter to prove that our company had not arbitrarily given up on its receivables from her. Additionally, there was a realistic concern that Ms. Kim Sae-ron might be required to pay a gift tax corresponding to the financial benefit she received due to the debt exemption.
The text message that Ms. Kim Sae-ron sent to Mr. Kim Soo-hyun on March 19, 2024, regarding her debt to our company, was written in this context. Our company had to go through the necessary process of bad debt provision through the certified letter.
Concerns Raised by Accounting Firms Regarding Article 36 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act
Kim Sae-ron’s debt issue was strictly a matter between her and Gold Medalist. The speculation that Kim Soo-hyun personally lent money to Kim Sae-ron or attempted to suddenly demand repayment is entirely unfounded. Kim Soo-hyun neither lent money to Kim Sae-ron nor demanded repayment and was not in a position to do so.
At the time, Kim Sae-ron had already left the company and lacked sufficient legal knowledge regarding her debts. This led her to send a message not to her creditor but to Kim Soo-hyun instead. However, Kim Soo-hyun was completely unaware of the situation between Gold Medalist and Kim Sae-ron. By then, the two had already been separated for four years.
Upon receiving her message, Kim Soo-hyun consulted the company, and Gold Medalist responded: “It appears that there may be a misunderstanding due to the other party’s lack of legal knowledge. It would not be appropriate to respond to such matters without confirmation from legal experts. The company will work with legal professionals to contact Kim Sae-ron’s agency and resolve the misunderstanding amicably.”
As attached, Gold Medalist provided an explanation regarding the purpose of the certified document.
Subsequently, on March 26, 2024, Kim Sae-ron’s legal representative stated: “In recognition of the goodwill your company has shown toward my client, as well as the responsibility for the damages incurred, we wish to discuss and coordinate the determination of the damage amount and the repayment plan.”
With this, the creditor-debtor relationship between Gold Medalist and Kim Sae-ron was concluded. The company wrote off the entire debt as a bad debt and never once demanded repayment afterward.
From Kim Sae-ron’s perspective, she likely believed that she was completely free from any debt obligations to Gold Medalist. Therefore, linking her cause of death, which occurred a year later, to this matter is an excessively malicious and irrational speculation.
Gold Medalist understood the financial difficulties Kim Sae-ron faced and, while choosing not to recover the loan, took all possible legal measures to prevent her from being subject to gift tax. Additionally, when covering her contract breach penalties, the company structured the payment as a loan with a 0% interest rate and 0% late fees. Yet, this has been maliciously distorted as if the company had pressured her for repayment, further being wrongfully linked as a cause of her passing a year later. Gold Medalist can only express deep sorrow over such unfounded accusations.
Who Benefits from the Unauthorized Exposure of Private Life?
A photo taken in adulthood has been misrepresented as a photo taken at age 16. A close acquaintance of the deceased’s mother has been falsely labeled as an aunt. A visually striking yet misleading image has been presented to capture attention, while the context and timeline have been subtly altered. As a result, a single captured text message has transformed a company’s efforts to assist with debt repayment into a narrative of pressure to repay money. Consequently, a debt issue resolved a year ago is now falsely portrayed as the direct cause of the deceased’s recent passing.
Amid this, Kim Soo-hyun has been unjustly dragged into the tragedy, painted as the main culprit. With the context removed and facts distorted, a single misleading piece of information has turned him into a criminal figure, making him an easy target for indiscriminate condemnation. Since Garo Sero Institute’s report, Kim Soo-hyun’s entire past is now being reinterpreted as intentional wrongdoing. Sensational unauthorized leaks of private images are being accompanied by repeated claims that he dated Kim Sae-ron when she was 16. Falsehoods are being accepted as truth, spreading rapidly across the internet, spawning countless fake news stories.
For someone being targeted and vilified, refuting every single false claim is nearly impossible. Even attempting to do so would require immense time and effort to compile evidence and clarify the facts. Meanwhile, the damage inflicted upon the individual becomes irreparable.
The photos of the two released by Garo Sero Institute are real, but that does not make their claims true. By selectively presenting a few eye-catching pieces of evidence, stripping away crucial context, and distorting the truth, many innocent people are suffering.
As previously stated, public figures, including Kim Soo-hyun, should accept scrutiny and criticism from the public. However, being a celebrity does not mean he must endure baseless rumors and personal attacks without limits. While Kim Soo-hyun understands that public reactions, including those related to his past and future private life revelations, are unavoidable, we must question:
Should personal, highly private matters between two consenting adults be publicly exposed without consent? Should an individual be forced to endure such extreme consequences solely due to unauthorized leaks of their private life?
Garo Sero Fires Back
On the same day, Garo Sero made another livestream, refuting Gold Medalist’s claims. The channel released multiple evidence that the clothes, accessories and facial features of Kim Soo-hyun in the released photos prove that they were taken before 2019. It also released a heartfelt message from Kim Sae-ron’s mom, which accused YouTuber Lee Jin-ho of fabricating news of her. However, she avoided directly mentioning Kim Soo-hyun for his mental health.
