Kim Soo-hyun’s 10,000-word statement, released on March 14, 2025, in response to ongoing controversies, has sparked intense public and media debate. While the actor aimed to clarify allegations surrounding his past relationship with Kim Sae-ron and address financial disputes, the response has largely failed to quell skepticism. Central to the criticism is his explanation of the timeline of their relationship. Kim Soo-hyun claimed their romantic involvement began in the summer of 2019, after Kim Sae-ron turned 19 (the legal age of adulthood in South Korea), and ended in autumn 2020. To support this, he cited clothing worn by Kim Sae-ron in a disputed photo as evidence, noting the outfit was released in June 2019. However, netizens countered that celebrities often wear unreleased items early, and outdated fashion choices are common, undermining the reliability of this argument. Additionally, critics highlighted his vague phrasing of “summer 2019” despite Kim Sae-ron reaching adulthood in February 2019, raising suspicions about potential ambiguity in the relationship’s start date.
The statement also addressed letters Kim Soo-hyun sent to Kim Sae-ron during his military service, which he described as casual correspondence. Yet phrases like “I want to see you” were interpreted as romantic overtures, and his refusal to release the full texts fueled doubts. Regarding financial issues, he acknowledged his agency covered 7 billion won of Kim Sae-ron’s 11 billion won penalty for a drunk-driving scandal but framed subsequent debt reminders as “tax-related formalities.” This explanation drew backlash, with many viewing the posthumous pursuit of repayment as insensitive, particularly given Kim Sae-ron’s tragic death.
Kim Soo-hyun firmly denied any connection to her passing, condemning accusations based on “false information.” Nonetheless, public frustration persists over his failure to resolve the debt or clarify their relationship while she was alive. Critics argue his statement avoided accountability, relying on legal threats and aggressive rhetoric like “stern warnings” instead of transparency. The lack of concrete evidence—such as photo metadata or legal documents—further weakened his credibility.
The timing and tone of the response exacerbated the crisis. Initially delayed as a “strategic pause,” the abrupt release of the lengthy statement appeared rushed and poorly planned. South Korea’s heightened sensitivity to power imbalances, especially involving minors or young adults in the entertainment industry, amplified scrutiny. Even if Kim Sae-ron was legally an adult during the relationship, allegations of earlier involvement or exploitation risked evoking parallels to past scandals like the Nth Room case.
Ultimately, the statement backfired, triggering a 70,000-follower drop, canceled endorsements, and growing industry backlash. To salvage his reputation, Kim Soo-hyun must provide irrefutable evidence—such as verified timestamps or legal records—and adopt a more empathetic, less defensive approach. The situation remains volatile, hinging on future revelations and potential legal proceedings.