Kim Soo-hyun suffers 'psychological instability', his agency condemns 'lies, personal attacks' in detailed statement

Kim Soo-hyun’s agency, Goldmedalist has released an official statement earlier than initially planned, in the midst of the raging controversy surrounding the actor. While they had previously announced their intention to address the matter with a clear and substantiated position by next week, the agency issued a response on the morning of March 14.

In the statement, Goldmedalist confirmed that Soo-hyun and the late Kim Sae-ron were in a past relationship but clarified that it did not occur during her minor years. The agency also denied allegations that they pressured Sae-ron to repay 700 million won (approximately $481,300), providing images as evidence to support their claims.

The statement revealed that Soo-hyun had exhibited signs of ‘severe psychological instability’ in the morning, and the company was doing their best to restore him. “Following HoverLab’s report, Kim Soo Hyun has been experiencing extreme confusion due to claims that the cause of the sudden death of the deceased is attributed to him. Additionally, on the night of March 12, after HoverLab’s broadcast, a vehicle with individuals holding cameras was stationed across from the company’s main entrance and in the parking lot until dawn. On March 13, around lunchtime, individuals with cameras were seen loitering around the building, continuing the psychological pressure on Kim Soo Hyun,” the statement mentioned.

The relationship and the photos on social media

Explaining their relationship, the statement said that the actors were in a relationship from the summer of 2019, when Sae-ron became a legal adult, till the fall of 2020. “It is not true that Kim Soo Hyun dated Kim Sae Ron when she was a minor. The photos shared by Kim Sae Ron on her Instagram Stories on March 24, 2024 and those shown in HoverLab’s broadcast on March 11, 2025 depict private moments of the two during their relationship in the winter of 2020,” the statement clarified.

The outfit worn by Kim Sae-ron in those photos was released by a brand in June 2019, making HoverLab’s claim that the photos were taken in 2016, when Kim Sae Ron was a minor, impossible, Gold Medalist further added.

Furthermore, the statement continued, another photo released by HoverLab on March 12, 2025 was taken on Christmas Eve, December 24, 2019. “We have secured the metadata for this photo. The photo released on March 13 can also be confirmed to have been taken on the same day, as evidenced by the matching outfits. All the photos presented by HoverLab as evidence that Kim Soo Hyun dated Kim Sae Ron since her minor years were taken when she was an adult. The repeated claim by HoverLab that there are “photos taken in 2016” is unfounded, as the two were not in a relationship at that time.”

“The letters Kim Soo Hyun sent to Kim Sae Ron during his military service were among the letters sent to close acquaintances. As can be seen from the content, Kim Soo-hyun was adapting to military life and often wrote in detail about his daily life to his friends. Expressions of missing someone are common among soldiers and their close friends. However, HoverLab has claimed that the two were dating since 2015, distorting photos taken after Kim Sae Ron became an adult as if they were from her minor years and juxtaposing postcards sent after their relationship with letters from his military service to make ordinary letters appear as love letters. The nickname Kim Sae Ron publicly used on social media since 2016 has been misrepresented as a private term used only between the two,” the statement continued.

Gold Medalist addressed the intense criticism directed at Soo-hyun, acknowledging that while a relationship between two adults is a private matter, public scrutiny is inevitable for a widely loved figure like him. They emphasised that harsh criticism should be taken seriously but expressed concern over the spread of false information and unverified rumors, fueled by HoverLab’s reports.

The agency pointed out inconsistencies in the claims made by an informant on HoverLab, who was introduced as a family member of Kim Sae Ron but was later identified by another media outlet as merely an acquaintance of her mother. They criticized the dissemination of distorted narratives based on an unreliable source, which has led to the spread of baseless rumors.

Gold Medalist also condemned the forced exposure of the private lives of both Kim Soo Hyun and Kim Sae Ron, highlighting the emotional distress this has caused. They stressed that while public opinion on the actors choices is unavoidable, the misrepresentation of a past relationship and its aftermath has led to ongoing falsehoods. The agency also denounced the invasion of privacy and posthumous defamation of Kim Sae Ron, calling it deeply painful and inappropriate.

The financial claims

Gold Medalist refuted HoverLab’s claims that Kim Soo Hyun ignored Kim Sae Ron’s pleas for help, leading to her tragic passing. They also denied allegations that the agency pressured Kim Soo Hyun to cover her debts, stating that they themselves paid off the remaining amount that Kim Sae Ron was unable to handle.

The agency explained that they worked with Kim Sae Ron to settle penalties and compensation related to her DUI Incident, which initially totaled approximately 1.014 billion won. Through various efforts, including selling her damaged vehicle, the remaining debt was reduced to about 700 million won. Gold Medalist dismissed accusations that they seized her car, clarifying that it was repaired and sold at her request.

The rest of the statement reads:

In this process, we had to comply with the legal procedures between us and Kim Sae Ron. If we were to arbitrarily bear the penalties that Kim Sae Ron should have borne, it could lead to the establishment of a breach of trust against the executives who made that decision, and there was a risk that the costs would not be recognized as a company expense. If we lent money to Kim Sae Ron without interest or collateral without any procedures or documentation, it could be seen as providing illegal benefits to a specific individual.

Additionally, in early 2024, during the process of undergoing an accounting audit, we had to decide how to handle the claims against Kim Sae Ron. According to the advice from the law firm and accounting firm conducting the audit, if we processed the amount as an uncollectible accounts expense without any debt collection actions against Kim Sae Ron, it would be seen as us unilaterally forgiving her debt, resulting in a loss for us, which could also raise concerns about a breach of trust by our executives.

Therefore, we had to prove that Kim Sae Ron was in a state of “unrecoverable” debt, meaning she was unable to repay the amount at that time. Thus, it was necessary to confirm that we made efforts to secure our claims against Kim Sae Ron.

This is why we sent a notice to Kim Sae Ron. To proceed with the provision process for the uncollectible accounts expense, we needed to send a notice to prove that we were not arbitrarily waiving our claims against her. There was also a realistic concern that Kim Sae Ron might have to pay a gift tax corresponding to the benefits she would gain from the debt waiver. The message Kim Sae Ron sent to Kim Soo Hyun on March 19, 2024 was written in this context. We needed to follow the process to provision for the uncollectible accounts expense through the notice.

(Article 36 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act raised as a concern by the accounting firm)

Therefore, the issue of Kim Sae Ron’s debt was entirely a matter between GOLDMEDALIST and Kim Sae Ron. The claims that Kim Soo Hyun personally lent money to Kim Sae Ron or suddenly sought to get it back are unfounded. Kim Soo Hyun has never lent money to Kim Sae Ron, nor has he urged repayment, nor was he in a position to do so.

At the time, Kim Sae Ron, who had left our company, lacked sufficient legal knowledge regarding her debt. Thus, she sent a message to Kim Soo Hyun and not her creditor. However, Kim Soo Hyun was completely unaware of the situation between our company and Kim Sae Ron. At that time, it had been about four years since the two broke up. Kim Soo Hyun inquired about the content of Kim Sae Ron’s message to our company, and we responded to him, “It seems there is a misunderstanding as the other party lacks accurate legal knowledge, so it would not be appropriate to respond to such matters without confirmation from an expert. The company will contact Kim Sae Ron’s agency with legal experts to resolve this amicably without misunderstandings.” We also explained the purpose of the notice we sent to Kim Sae Ron.

Subsequently, on March 26, 2024, Kim Sae Ron’s side expressed through her legal representative, “We would like to express our gratitude for the sincerity your company has shown to our client over the past period, and along with this, we wish to convey our intention to take responsibility for the damages your company has incurred. With the determination of the amount of damages the client is liable for, we hope to coordinate and adjust the future repayment plan through mutual agreement.” This brought the creditor-debtor relationship between GOLDMEDALIST and Kim Sae Ron to a conclusion, and after processing the entire claim against Kim Sae Ron as an uncollectible accounts expense, we have not demanded repayment even once.

Therefore, from Kim Sae Ron’s perspective, it can be seen that she understood she was completely free from her debt to GOLDMEDALIST. To link the cause of her death, which occurred a year later, to this is an unreasonable claim and excessively malicious speculation. GOLDMEDALIST understood the difficult circumstances of our former actress Kim Sae Ron and, while not seeking repayment of the loan, took care to prevent her from incurring gift tax as much as possible according to the law. Additionally, in the process of paying her penalties, we treated it as a loan with 0 percent interest and also set the late payment damages to 0 percent. It is only heartbreaking that this has been distorted as if we pressured her for repayment and that it has been maliciously portrayed as the cause of the deceased’s unfortunate decision a year later.