Hello, this is GOLDMEDALIST.

We would like to address the claims stated at the press conference held by the family of the late Kim Sae Ron in collaboration with HoverLab Inc. (hereafter referred to as HoverLab) as well as HoverLab’s YouTube channel.

We state our position regarding the second certification of contents.

During the press conference, the family claimed that our company’s second certification of contents sent on March 25, 2024 stated, “The notice includes that if you post a photo similar to the one posted on March 24 on social media, contact any of the actors from the agency, or if ‘Queen of Tears’ suffers any damages, you will be liable for full compensation.” In response, we are attaching the original text of the certification of contents to this statement.

As can be confirmed through the certification of contents, our company did not demand any compensation from Kim Sae Ron for damages related to [the drama]. It is also impossible to claim compensation for damages for posting photos on social media or contacting agency actors.

The reason we sent the second certification of contents was to provide Kim Sae Ron with a more accurate explanation of the certification of contents. As stated in our previous statement, we sent a notice by mail to inform Kim Sae Ron that our claims against her were in a “non-recoverable” state, allowing us to write off the debt and eliminate any potential for occupational breach of trust by our executives. This was the first certification of contents sent on March 15, 2024.

However, as is known, Kim Sae Ron sent a text to Kim Soo Hyun regarding this matter and posted a photo of the two on social media on March 24. The certification of contents sent on March 25 was intended to alleviate Kim Sae Ron’s concerns and explain the reasons for urging debt repayment, as well as to express our willingness to negotiate positively regarding the repayment. As explained in the attached second certification of contents, we informed Kim Sae Ron that “if the company does not claim the repayment of your loan despite the due date having arrived, there is a possibility that the executives of the client company could be liable for breach of trust,” and we expressed our “willingness to negotiate the method and timing of the debt repayment.”

^{[Excerpt of the certification of contents from the law firm representing GOLDMEDALIST]}

The family claims that the second certification of contents effectively “demanded that the deceased repay her debt within a given period.” However, as previously explained, the second certification of contents merely states that we are willing to negotiate the method and timing of the debt repayment with Kim Sae Ron and requests that she inform her legal representative of a possible repayment schedule. There is no content urging repayment at all. The reason for including the request to “inform her legal representative of a possible repayment schedule” is that the purpose of the notice itself is to prove that “despite urging repayment, we were unable to recover it,” and therefore, it could not include any statement suggesting that “the debt does not need to be repaid.” If we explicitly stated that the debt does not need to be repaid, it would imply a debt waiver for Kim Sae Ron, which could lead to issues regarding a gift tax.

In fact, the day after sending the second certification of contents, on March 26, our legal representative communicated with Kim Sae Ron’s management agency to explain the purpose of the mailed certification of contents. In response, Kim Sae Ron expressed [through the 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.”

^{[Excerpt from the certification of contents sent by the law firm representing Kim Ah Im (formerly Kim Sae Ron).]}

As stated in our previous statement, this effectively concluded the creditor-debtor relationship between our company and actress Kim Sae Ron. Subsequently, we would like to clarify once again that we processed the entire amount of the claim against Kim Sae Ron as an uncollectible accounts expense without any further demands or repayment negotiations immediately after (upon receiving the audit report on April 1, 2024). This indicates that our company never intended to pressure the late Kim Sae Ron for repayment of the debt from the beginning, and neither the deceased nor the family made any attempts to repay the debt afterward.

Furthermore, the creditor-debtor relationship between our company and Kim Sae Ron is entirely a matter under our agency’s jurisdiction. Kim Soo Hyun does not have the authority to comment on this matter. Therefore, we had to officially request [Kim Sae Ron] through the certification of contents that she refrain from contacting Kim Soo Hyun regarding the debt. We clarified to Kim Sae Ron that “debt repayment is not the responsibility of the employees or actors of the client company but rather a matter under the jurisdiction of the client company” and requested that she communicate only with the lawyers from our law firm who have been authorized to negotiate regarding the debt. There is certainly no content with statements such as contacting the client company’s actor would result in liability for damages. Nevertheless, HoverLab distorted the meaning in their report on March 17, claiming that we were “threatening to not contact not only Kim Soo Hyun but also anyone from GOLDMEDALIST.” However, we have never made such demands to our agency’s actors, and afterward, Kim Sae Ron continued to communicate freely with the agency’s actors.

When Kim Sae Ron posted the photo on social media on March 24, the drama “Queen of Tears,” in which Kim Soo Hyun was starring, was airing. Following this, from 2:14 a.m. when the photo was posted until around 11 a.m. when we issued our official statement, over 50 articles were published. Therefore, we felt the need to inform Kim Sae Ron that such sudden actions could impact the drama production company, the cast and crew, the broadcasting station, and all related parties. We reiterate that we did not pressure Kim Sae Ron regarding compensation for damages.

Our position regarding YouTuber A

Kim Sae Ron’s contract with GOLDMEDALIST expired in November 2022. After that, she was working with another entertainment company. The manager, who was claimed by HoverLab to have a relationship with YouTuber Lee Jin Ho, is associated with that other company and is not an employee of GOLDMEDALIST. Nevertheless, HoverLab distorted the facts by using statements that cleverly avoid legal responsibility, such as “We are at the stage of suspecting that person A, who said they are close friends, is a manager of Kim Soo Hyun’s agency.”

Our position regarding false claims related to actress Seo Yea Ji

HoverLab claimed on March 17 that our company conspired with media outlets to defame Seo Yea Ji based on an anonymous informant. This claim is a false assertion led by an anonymous informant, and even the manager who was in charge of Seo Yea Ji at the time, who has since left the company, contacted us in disbelief. We ask that they stop spreading false information without any basis or accountability.

We urge the bereaved family to cease the continuous circulation of false information.

In addition, the family has made many false claims against GOLDMEDALIST and Kim Soo Hyun. For example, they claimed that our company did not attend the deceased’s funeral. However, we visited the funeral hall on February 17 and February 19, 2025, to meet the family, offer our condolences, and leave a wreath and condolence money.

^{[A condolence wreath sent by GOLDMEDALIST to the late Kim Sae Ron’s funeral hall.]}

HoverLab referred to the informant who leaked Kim Soo Hyun’s private life as “Kim Sae Ron’s aunt.” However, articles emerged stating that the informant is not an aunt. During today’s press conference, the family stated regarding the informant, “The mother (of the deceased) does not have a married sister. The aunt, who is more like a real mother to Sae Ron, is the one who recently gave an interview,” and described her as “someone who is more like a real aunt than a biological aunt.” It is common sense that when someone identifies themselves as an “aunt” in the media, they should mean the biological sister of the mother. The public’s trust in whether the informant is a real relative or a close acquaintance can differ based on media portrayal. However, the family ambiguously expressed whether the informant is a real relative or a close acquaintance during the press conference. Recently, many industry insiders have informed us that the informant is the mother of a certain actress.

The most important aspect of an informant is the truth of the information provided, not the identity of the informant. Our company is also clearly aware of this. However, we are mentioning the informant’s identity because the family stated during the press conference that “it is a very big mistake to involve family members” in relation to leaking photos containing Kim Soo Hyun’s private life. The photo in question, as revealed in past broadcasts featuring Kim Sae Ron, is of a home that Kim Sae Ron obtained after becoming an adult. It is unrelated to the timeline of the relationship claimed by the family. Nevertheless, they leaked Kim Soo Hyun’s private life under the pretext of “a very big mistake.” HoverLab has repeatedly hinted at the release of this photo, sensationalizing it with provocative language. The family cites the sensational reporting of Kim Sae Ron’s private life as one of the reasons for her passing. Therefore, we would like to ask what these actions are that the family and HoverLab are currently taking against Kim Soo Hyun.

HoverLab once again claimed through their YouTube channel that Kim Soo Hyun dated Kim Sae Ron during her minor years based on a photo posted on June 23, 2017 by a fan of Kim Sae Ron on social media. However, the person in the photo is not Kim Soo Hyun but someone else. HoverLab claimed that the outfit worn by the person in the photo is similar to a product that Kim Soo Hyun advertised in the past. However, the outfit in the photo is from a different brand than the one Kim Soo Hyun advertised.

^{[The person in the photo posted on Kim Sae Ron’s fan social media account is not Kim Soo Hyun but someone else.]}

We believe it is unnecessary for our company to respond to baseless allegations based on a photo posted on a fan account, where the face is not even visible, that was brought to light. However, the family has made new claims that Kim Soo Hyun frequently visited the apartment where Kim Sae Ron lived with her family and secretly met when her family was not home based on this photo that does not even show a face. Kim Soo Hyun has never been to the location that HoverLab directly pointed out as “this elevator.” It was HoverLab that went there, not Kim Soo Hyun.

The family has publicly disclosed Kim Soo Hyun’s private life under the pretext of mentioning “more like a real aunt than a biological aunt.” Yet, they had never made claims that Kim Soo Hyun frequently visited Kim Sae Ron’s family home and had secret meetings during her minor years until now. However, after the photo from the fan account became known, the family suddenly began making such claims. We urge them to stop the act of attributing all sorts of non-existent lies based on a single photo unrelated to the essence of the incident or a post found online.

^{[Full text of second certification of contents]}