Kim Soo Hyun’s Agency Reveals Its Position On The Second Official Notice In Lengthy Statement
This article is part of our coverage of Kim Soo Hyun And Kim Sae Ron's Relationship. You can read more and view the entire timeline here.
On March 18, Kim Soo Hyun’s agency, Gold Medalist, refuted the claims made by the late Kim Sae Ron’s bereaved family.
In the statement, they revealed their position on the second notice sent regarding the claim for damages, forced repayment of the debt, and the prohibition of contact with anyone from the agency.
“Hello, this is Gold Medalist. We want to state our position regarding the claims made by the late Kim Sae Ron’s bereaved family at the press conference held with Garosero Research Institute on March 17.
This is our position regarding the second certified letter that was sent.
The bereaved family claimed that the second certified letter that was sent on March 25, 2024, stated that ‘if she posts similar photos to the one posted on March 24, or contacts any of the agency’s actors, she will have to compensate any damages suffered by the drama ‘Queen of Tears.’’ The original certified mail is attached to this statement.
As seen from the certified letter, we have never demanded compensation from Kim Sae Ron for any damages to the drama. It is also not possible to claim compensation for posting photos online or contacting other actors at the agency.
We sent the second certified letter to provide more information about the first certified letter. As stated previously, we sent the letter to inform her that the debt she owed had not been collected yet and to eliminate the possibility of our executives’ dereliction of duty. This is from the first certified letter sent on March 15, 2024.”
They also stated that they had no intention to pressure her to pay her debt.
“However, on March 24, Kim Sae Ron texted Kim Soo Hyun about this and posted a photo of them on her social media account. The second certified letter was intended to explain why we urged her to repay her debt and reveal our intention to negotiate with her regarding her debt payment. As seen in the second certified letter, we stated, ‘If the company does not request payment of our loan debt, our client company could be charged with breach of trust,’ and that our intention was to ‘proactively discuss the method for debt repayment.’
The bereaved family claimed that the second letter was just a way to buy more time so that she could repay her debt. However, as stated above, the second letter was only intended to discuss with her the timing of repayment. It does not contain any demands to urge her to repay her debt. The reason why it says to ‘inform your legal representatives of a possible debt repayment schedule’ is to prove that the debt repayment was requested but was not collected, as it cannot include that the debt does not have to be repaid. If we had stated that she does not have to repay the debt, we would be exempting her from her debt, which could have caused tax issues.
On March 26, 2024, our legal representative contacted Kim Sae Ron’s agency and explained the purpose of the letter. Kim Sae Ron then stated her position regarding the second letter.
‘I would like to express my gratitude for the sincerity you have shown me. I will, of course, take responsibility for the damages suffered and would like to discuss the future payment plan to show my determination to take responsibility for the damages I must bear.’
As stated previously, the creditor-debtor relationship with the agency and Kim Sae Ron has been settled. We would like to state again that we recorded the entire amount of debt owed as bad debt(after receiving the audit report on April 1, 2024) without any urging or negotiation regarding payment.
With this, you can see we had no intention to pressure her to repay the debt from the beginning, and the deceased and the bereaved family have never attempted to repay the debt since then.
Lastly, they emphasized that they never demanded that she pay damages for contacting anyone from the agency.
“Also, the agency’s creditor-debtor relationship with Kim Sae Ron is under our jurisdiction. Kim Soo Hyun has no authority to inform his position on the matter. Because of this, we had to refrain her from contacting Kim Soo Hyun regarding debt in the certified letter.”
We explained to Kim Sae Ron that the debt repayment is not the responsibility of the agency’s employees or actors but of the client company, thus requesting that she not contact any of the agency’s actors regarding this matter.
There is no content that states that she needs to pay damages if she contacts actors from the agency. However, Garosero distorted the meaning in the report, stating that we threatened her if she contacted not only Kim Soo Hyun but also anyone from the agency. However, we did not make such demands and she freely contacted the actors afterwards.
When Kim Sae Ron posted the photo on social media on March 24, it was during the airing of ‘Queen of Tears’. At least 50 articles poured out from 2:14 AM to 11 AM, when our company revealed our official position. We informed Kim Sae Ron that impulsive actions could affect all parties involved, including the drama production company, actors, broadcasting station, and more. We never pressured her to pay for damages.”
Meanwhile, the statement also refuted the claims that the man in the 2017 photo was not Kim Soo Hyun.
