Kim Soo-hyun’s Fans Threaten Boycott After Brand Files Property Seizure Lawsuit
On June 11, the Kim Soo-hyun Korea & Global Fan Union released a formal statement condemning brand “A” for filing a provisional seizure of Kim Soo-hyun’s property and for exposing his private information in the process.
“This represents a clear case of secondary harm against a crime victim and a severe violation of privacy,” the statement read. The fans emphasized that Kim Soo-hyun has already suffered serious defamation and reputational damage due to fabricated claims propagated by Garo Sero Institute and the family of the late actress Kim Sae-ron.
The fan union further criticized the brand’s legal action, stating, “It is extremely unjust and irrational for a company that profited off Kim Soo-hyun’s image to file such a suit against a victim who had no role in the crisis.”
They insisted that if image damage or breach of contract was the concern, the responsibility should lie with those who spread false information, not the actor himself. “Taking legal action against the victim is ethically indefensible,” they added.
Fans warned of a full boycott of all products associated with brand A unless a clear explanation and proper handling of the situation are provided. Many fans first encountered the brand through Kim Soo-hyun’s endorsements, making the betrayal feel personal and unjustified.
The backlash began after Garo Sero Institute echoed claims from Kim Sae-ron’s family about a relationship with Kim Soo-hyun before she was of legal age claims his team denied, saying they began dating in 2019. The dispute escalated into lawsuits, with a brand winning a $22M property seizure against Kim Soo-hyun, and Kim Soo-hyun’s agency retaliating with a $30M asset freeze against Garo Sero’s CEO, which was also approved by the court.
Kim Soo-hyun’s legal representative commented on June 12, stating, “At a time when it’s increasingly evident that Kim Soo-hyun is the victim of false claims, the fact that he continues to face secondary harm is extremely regrettable.”
They also questioned how fabricated chat logs and audio files from Garo Sero Institute could influence the court’s decision, emphasizing the serious criminal implications of such manipulation.