What really got me was his behavior around her inebriated driving incident at the restaurant. (I think most people…
Your reply is based on a false premise. First, it was not KSH who asked her to move the car, but the restaurant manager. Second, asking the owner to move a car does not automatically mean the owner had to drive it while intoxicated. She could have asked any sober person nearby to move it, but for reasons known only to her, she chose to do it herself. That subject itself is tragic, and there is no point in discussing it. Anyway your message is just a pathetic lie And no, I do not keep a “library of links.” I simply believe that when someone makes a public claim, it should be researched first. After all, above the keyboard there should be more than just the hands that type.
Recent developments in the lawsuits filed by companies that had endorsement contracts with Kim Soo-hyun show there was no clear legal basis for terminating those contracts. None of the companies has convincingly justified its claims, and the cases have been repeatedly suspended or removed from the court schedule. Claims that these companies cannot challenge him because he is wealthy are unfounded, since the companies themselves have far greater financial resources than he does. On April 10, the case filed by Cuckoo Electronics did not proceed because the court had previously ordered the plaintiff to clarify its claims. When Cuckoo failed to submit that clarification, the court removed the case from the hearing list and gave the company until May 8 to comply; otherwise, the case may be dismissed. Likewise, the hearing scheduled for April 24 in the case filed by Dinto did not move forward. Earlier, the court had required Dinto to prove that it suffered damage, that the damage was caused by KSH, and that he was legally responsible. Instead of providing that evidence, Dinto requested suspension of the case pending the outcome of the related criminal proceedings, suggesting concern about the strength of its claim. The remaining cases are also suspended pending the police investigation. Since neither the family nor Garo0 has produced verifiable evidence, and several key allegations have already been challenged, it appears increasingly likely that the accusations against Kim Soo-hyun will eventually be shown to be false. A further consequence is that the companies that suspended their claims could later seek damages from those they believe caused the controversy, namely the family and Garo0.
It's a tragic shame that there was absolutely no one willing to listen to KSR's family apart from Kim Se-Ui.
When you want justice, you don't wait for someone to listen to you, but you file a complaint against the guilty party because there are legal institutions that ensure the investigation in such cases. Considering that it was the family of the deceased who publicized the case, the same family had the opportunity to prove what they said during the investigations by presenting all the evidence and witnesses they referred to publicly. They already made a complaint against him based on a recording, so they can prove their allegations by supplementing with other original evidence, if they do not have the original recording, and the recording is not manipulated with AI. This was ruled by the Supreme Court in 2025. When seeking justice, one does not wait for public attention but files a complaint with the competent authorities, which are responsible for investigating such cases. Since the deceased’s family themselves made the case public and have already filed a complaint, they now have the opportunity to prove their allegations by submitting all relevant evidence and identifying the witnesses they referred to. This includes presenting the recording in its original form or, if unavailable, supporting it with other reliable evidence, provided it has not been altered or manipulated, including through AI. As held by the Supreme Court in 2025, a copy may still have evidentiary value if it faithfully reflects the original, as determined through a comprehensive assessment of the circumstances. https://www.shinkim.com/eng/media/newsletter/2796;shinkimfront=613B8C80288D607512F00F25DBED5184#:~:text=On%20February%2027%2C%202025%2C%20the,original%20can%20be%20sufficiently%20established.
International fans denounce «narrative construction»On the international fan front, certain communities are…
All these prior cases, together with the conviction of Kim Se-ui in the Tzuyang case, may raise doubts as to the credibility of the accusations made against KSH. However, they do not, in themselves, establish that those accusations are untrue. At this stage, neither the deceased’s family nor Garo0 have publicly presented verifiable evidence capable of substantiating their claims. In the absence of such evidence, the allegations remain unproven. However, the question of truth or falsity ultimately falls within the competence of the judicial authorities. If it is established that false accusations were made, this may lead to legal consequences for those responsible (Garo0&comp).
International fans denounce «narrative construction»On the international fan front, certain communities are…
From a legal standpoint, the debt is to be borne by the heirs of the deceased. In this case, the heirs would be the parents and siblings. It must also be taken into account that the funds originated from a company, which requires compliance with the applicable legal and accounting procedures to avoid any risk of the transaction being qualified as embezzlement or tax evasion, as the case may be. However, to my knowledge, proceedings had already been initiated to address the impossibility of recovering the debt, including the debtor’s (KSR’s) insolvency.
The consensus is that he will most likely be exonerated in court, but the damage is done. None of his international…
Reproducing allegations circulated in the online environment, to which elements of hostility are added, only serves to obscure the objective reality. If the new leadership, represented by the current government, had provided any form of support to KSH, the investigation would, by now, have been finalized and the case file submitted to the competent prosecutors for confirmation or infirmation of its conclusions. Consequently, such a hypothesis lacks both a logical foundation and any factual substantiation. The assertion that KSH will be exonerated as a result of a change in government raises a preliminary and essential question: exonerated of what? To date, the deceased’s family has lodged a single complaint against him, reportedly based on an audio recording that was not submitted in its original form for forensic examination, as required under Article 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, even assuming that the recording is not presented in its original format, this does not automatically exclude its evidentiary value. Provided that the recording has not been altered or manipulated, it may still constitute admissible evidence. In 2025, the Supreme Court held that the determination of whether a copy faithfully reflects the original, in the absence of artificial modification, must be made through a comprehensive assessment of all relevant circumstances, including testimonies or statements from individuals involved in the creation, transmission, and storage of the file. https://www.shinkim.com/eng/media/newsletter/2796;shinkimfront=613B8C80288D607512F00F25DBED5184#:~:text=On%20February%2027%2C%202025%2C%20the,original%20can%20be%20sufficiently%20established. In this context, the appropriate procedural course would be the submission of all such evidence in its original form for proper examination by the competent authorities. But, the original KakaoTalk messages have not been submitted, the referenced letters have not been produced, and the alleged witnesses have not been identified so as to be heard in accordance with procedural requirements. Criminal investigations are grounded in evidence, not in speculation or unverified assertions. Accordingly, no question of “exoneration” can meaningfully arise in the absence of sufficient evidence capable of supporting a conviction.
I am writing this for those who are still trying to label KSH as guilty without an official decision or verdict.…
Yes, you are right. If the complaint is based on Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the person filing it must prove that the statements made about him are false. In this case, Kim Soo-hyun would therefore need to demonstrate, by any admissible means of evidence, that the allegations are untrue. By filing such a complaint, he also assumes a significant legal risk. If a person brings a claim under Article 307(2) (defamation by false statements), but the statements are ultimately proven to be true, he may be exposed to liability under Article 156 of the Criminal Act (false accusation).
International fans denounce «narrative construction»On the international fan front, certain communities are…
Let’s review the outcomes of cases closely related to Kim Soo-hyun’s case. The deceased’s former manager confirmed Kim Soo-hyun’s claims at a press conference about the so-called pressure of the obligation to repay the loan. It was clarified that Gold Medalist or KSH was not compelled KSR to repay the interest-free loan from Gold Medalist. The procedure was entirely legal: the funds came from the company, which is not a banking institution issuing loans, so documentation was required to justify the postponement of repayment. This was especially relevant because she was no longer affiliated with Gold Medalist. Kim Se-ui also filed a complaint against Kim Soo-hyun’s fandom for publicly accusing him of spreading lies and defaming him. However, the police dismissed his complaint. Conversely, KSH fans filed a complaint against Lee Jung-seop for spreading false information and defaming Kim Soo-hyun; the police confirmed the validity of the complaint and referred the case to prosecutors. Additionally, the former art director at Gold Medalist testified to police that the photo used by the deceased’s family and Kim Se-ui to allege that KSH sent messages on KakaoTalk to the deceased was actually taken in 2020. This confirms that the messages attributed to Kim Soo-hyun could not have originated from him, leaving the deceased’s family and Kim Se-ui to explain why the sender was falsified. Key developments include: 1. Lee Jung-seop was accused of spreading false information and defaming Kim Soo-hyun on social media following controversies involving Kim Sae-ron in 2025. https://www.mk.co.kr/en/hot-issues/11956123 2. YouTuber Kwon Young-chan, who raised allegations of "embezzlement of hospital bills" and "grooming" against K, the late KSR’s former manager, was referred to the prosecution on charges of defamation under the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection. https://m.entertain.naver.com/home/article/416/0000321380?spi_ref=m_entertain_x 3. The defamation complaint filed by Kim Se-ui (operator of Garo Sero Research Institute) against Kim Soo-hyun’s fan union was rejected by police. https://www.allkpop.com/article/2026/01/defamation-complaint-filed-by-kim-se-eui-against-kim-soo-hyun-fan-union-dismissed-without-charges 4. The director who took Kim Soo-hyun’s profile photo confirmed that it was captured on April 3, 2020, and publicly released on June 15, 2020. Metadata from the original file was submitted as evidence. Therefore, the photo could not have appeared in KakaoTalk messages allegedly exchanged with the deceased in 2016. If the photo was inserted to misrepresent the conversation partner as KSH, the 2016 messages are demonstrably fabricated. https://www.instagram.com/p/DP06o83j11s/?igsh=ZXZ5cTV3a3o0MXF2 With all the facts revealed… guess what’s next?
At today’s hearing in the lawsuit in which Dinto seeks damages from Gold Medalist and Kim Soo-hyun, the court was presided over by a newly appointed judge who first needed to review the procedural posture of the case and the positions of the parties. No substantive issues were discussed during the session, and no procedural measures were taken. The court limited itself to confirming the status of the proceedings and will subsequently assess the claims and defenses advanced by both sides. Nevertheless, Dinto’s legal representative continues to rely on contractual clauses that are not expressly stipulated in the agreement between the parties. It should be noted that terminating a contract without a legitimate reason may itself constitute a breach of contract attributable to Dinto. Kim Soo-hyun’s legal representative from LKB & Partners explained: “Unlike the first hearing, the presiding judge has changed this time. The court merely confirmed the matters previously discussed and recorded the procedural progress of the case before adjourning.” The lawyer also stated: “The court inquired about the status of Kim Soo-hyun’s complaint against Kim Se-ui, the operator of the YouTube channel Garo 0. However, no decision has yet been issued in that matter. We expect a ruling to be made in the near future.” The defense further pointed out that, although the company announced the termination of the contract in March, Kim Soo-hyun’s promotional images reportedly remained on the brand’s Korean and Japanese websites and in Japanese retail stores until June. In response, the plaintiff stated that all related promotional materials have since been removed and that local agencies in Japan were instructed to cease using the images. As both parties maintain their respective positions, the dispute appears far from resolution. The next hearing is scheduled for April 24, when further discussions on the merits of the case are expected to continue. In essence, Dinto’s representative acknowledged that the company continued to use Kim Soo-hyun’s image even after officially terminating the collaboration and initiating legal proceedings against him, while still maintaining that it was the injured party. It should also be recalled that at the previous hearing the plaintiff increased the amount of damages claimed, and the judge at that time adopted an active role in the proceedings, expressly requesting Dinto to submit evidence supporting the alleged damages. At today’s hearing, however, no such evidence was presented. Although the presiding judge has changed, the matters previously discussed remain recorded in the official minutes of the court session. Under the principles of civil procedure, any claim brought before the court must be substantiated by evidence. Accordingly, Dinto bears the burden of proving the existence and extent of the alleged damages and of demonstrating that its decision to terminate the collaboration (reportedly based on rumors) was justified and did not itself constitute a breach of contract that caused the alleged harm. Nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans.
This day was not an ordinary anniversary, it was an international one in which support for Kim Soo Hyun crossed borders and demonstrated once again that love can unite unknown people. And the fans did not stop there, they made substantial donations for children with heart diseases, because Kim Soo Hyun inspired them. There is a saying, those who think alike, gather together. You can see what feelings united Kim Soo Hyun's fans, from their actions. You can see what unites those who spread hatred, from their messages. Today the love, the empathy and goodness defeated hatred. Happy birthday Kim Soo Hyun, may you live the same way, inspiring and urging others to make good deeds.
While waiting for the next news about the results of the investigations into Kim Soo-hyun's complaints from the Gangnam Police, you have the opportunity to enjoy the unforgettable moments of the clown on duty. Enjoy!⬇️
Cuckoo vs. GM and Kim Soo-hyun lawsuit part III. In an attempt to justify the desire to terminate the contract, the plaintiff - Cuck** - introduced a discussion about messages, debts, and photographs allegedly involving the late KSR, a line of argument that prompted “laughter” from the audience. After all, if such matters are indeed relevant, logic would suggest that the civil proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome of the criminal case. The judge therefore asked whether the plaintiff considered it preferable to wait for the criminal proceedings to be finalized. Likely overwhelmed by the many plot twists, the plaintiffs’ lawyer agreed that waiting might be better—despite his client’s professed interest in concluding the case as quickly as possible. The court ultimately requested that both parties submit their positions on the legal nature of the alleged grounds for termination, the scope of the claimed damages, and the interpretation of the foreign contractual provisions. The hearing was then adjourned until April 10, the curtain falling on a second act rich in judicial humor.
Cuckoo vs. GM and Kim Soo-hyun lawsuit part II. As every good comedy unfolds in several acts, so too does the famous Trial of the Cuck**s, which now advances to its next scene: one in which the plaintiffs must finally explain on what legal grounds they unilaterally terminated the contract. This task is made slightly more challenging by the inconvenient fact that the contract allows termination only in the event of a breach of contractual obligations, not on the basis of a controversy, scandal, or public drama. As any unilateral termination must be effected through a formal notice identifying the specific contractual clauses allegedly breached, the court quite reasonably asked the plaintiffs’ lawyers to clarify a simple point: do they consider the email they sent, or the lawsuit itself, to constitute the notice of termination? The question was unavoidable, given that Cuck** is seeking damages without explaining how—or from what date—those damages were calculated. Moreover, the initial notification fails to meet the legal requirements of a termination notice, making it difficult to conclude that the contract was ever validly terminated in the first place. Through all this Shakespearean confusion, the judge demonstrated his determination to unravel the mystery of the plaintiff's complicated claim.
Cuckoo vs. GM and Kim Soo-hyun lawsuit part I. As most of you already know, Friday, January 16, marked yet another court appearance in the Cuckoo vs. GM and KSH lawsuit. It seems that in this new year we have gracefully transitioned from operetta to Shakespeare’s comic opera The Comedy of Errors. The “famous” lawsuit filed by Cuck** against Kim Soo-hyun continues to challenge the court’s powers of interpretation. Although Cuck** seeks compensation from Kim Soo-hyun, there is, inconveniently, no contract with the actor, and the contract signed with GM does not even mention his name. This naturally raises a small but troublesome question: in what capacity, exactly, did they sue KSH? The plaintiffs themselves appeared unsure, attempting to distinguish between the defendants with all the confidence - and success—of Shakespeare’s famously confused characters. (To be continued)
6 
11 
And no, I do not keep a “library of links.” I simply believe that when someone makes a public claim, it should be researched first. After all, above the keyboard there should be more than just the hands that type.
On April 10, the case filed by Cuckoo Electronics did not proceed because the court had previously ordered the plaintiff to clarify its claims. When Cuckoo failed to submit that clarification, the court removed the case from the hearing list and gave the company until May 8 to comply; otherwise, the case may be dismissed.
Likewise, the hearing scheduled for April 24 in the case filed by Dinto did not move forward. Earlier, the court had required Dinto to prove that it suffered damage, that the damage was caused by KSH, and that he was legally responsible. Instead of providing that evidence, Dinto requested suspension of the case pending the outcome of the related criminal proceedings, suggesting concern about the strength of its claim.
The remaining cases are also suspended pending the police investigation. Since neither the family nor Garo0 has produced verifiable evidence, and several key allegations have already been challenged, it appears increasingly likely that the accusations against Kim Soo-hyun will eventually be shown to be false.
A further consequence is that the companies that suspended their claims could later seek damages from those they believe caused the controversy, namely the family and Garo0.
When seeking justice, one does not wait for public attention but files a complaint with the competent authorities, which are responsible for investigating such cases.
Since the deceased’s family themselves made the case public and have already filed a complaint, they now have the opportunity to prove their allegations by submitting all relevant evidence and identifying the witnesses they referred to. This includes presenting the recording in its original form or, if unavailable, supporting it with other reliable evidence, provided it has not been altered or manipulated, including through AI.
As held by the Supreme Court in 2025, a copy may still have evidentiary value if it faithfully reflects the original, as determined through a comprehensive assessment of the circumstances.
https://www.shinkim.com/eng/media/newsletter/2796;shinkimfront=613B8C80288D607512F00F25DBED5184#:~:text=On%20February%2027%2C%202025%2C%20the,original%20can%20be%20sufficiently%20established.
At this stage, neither the deceased’s family nor Garo0 have publicly presented verifiable evidence capable of substantiating their claims. In the absence of such evidence, the allegations remain unproven.
However, the question of truth or falsity ultimately falls within the competence of the judicial authorities. If it is established that false accusations were made, this may lead to legal consequences for those responsible (Garo0&comp).
It must also be taken into account that the funds originated from a company, which requires compliance with the applicable legal and accounting procedures to avoid any risk of the transaction being qualified as embezzlement or tax evasion, as the case may be.
However, to my knowledge, proceedings had already been initiated to address the impossibility of recovering the debt, including the debtor’s (KSR’s) insolvency.
Because the available public information points to personal circumstances that are not, in any verifiable way, connected to KSH.
For instance, reports describe her behavior after the incident:
https://www.asiae.co.kr/en/article/2023040507394587840
https://www.allkpop.com/article/2022/11/kim-sae-rons-agency-has-no-comment-on-the-actress-throwing-a-birthday-party-with-drinks-two-months-after-her-dui-charges
Other reports relate to her personal life prior to the incident:
which led her to drink and drive under the influence of alcohol?
https://www.koreaboo.com/news/new-details-kim-sae-ron-relationship-alleged-idol-boyfriend-exposed/
https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/web-series/who-is-lee-chan-hee-kim-sae-rons-ex-boyfriend-revealed-as-popular-k-pop-survival-show-member-9910336/
https://kbizoom.com/kim-saeron-dating-history-scandal/
https://kbizoom.com/a-minor-who-drank-alcohol-and-smoked-kim-sae-rons-past-photos/
https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/2025-05-21/entertainment/television/Timeline-of-Kim-Saerons-relationships-raises-questions-on-authenticity-of-familys-abuse-claims/2312406
Even taken together, these do not establish any causal link between KSH and her actions. Without concrete evidence, attributing responsibility to him remains purely speculative.
The assertion that KSH will be exonerated as a result of a change in government raises a preliminary and essential question: exonerated of what? To date, the deceased’s family has lodged a single complaint against him, reportedly based on an audio recording that was not submitted in its original form for forensic examination, as required under Article 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
However, even assuming that the recording is not presented in its original format, this does not automatically exclude its evidentiary value. Provided that the recording has not been altered or manipulated, it may still constitute admissible evidence. In 2025, the Supreme Court held that the determination of whether a copy faithfully reflects the original, in the absence of artificial modification, must be made through a comprehensive assessment of all relevant circumstances, including testimonies or statements from individuals involved in the creation, transmission, and storage of the file.
https://www.shinkim.com/eng/media/newsletter/2796;shinkimfront=613B8C80288D607512F00F25DBED5184#:~:text=On%20February%2027%2C%202025%2C%20the,original%20can%20be%20sufficiently%20established.
In this context, the appropriate procedural course would be the submission of all such evidence in its original form for proper examination by the competent authorities. But, the original KakaoTalk messages have not been submitted, the referenced letters have not been produced, and the alleged witnesses have not been identified so as to be heard in accordance with procedural requirements.
Criminal investigations are grounded in evidence, not in speculation or unverified assertions. Accordingly, no question of “exoneration” can meaningfully arise in the absence of sufficient evidence capable of supporting a conviction.
In this case, Kim Soo-hyun would therefore need to demonstrate, by any admissible means of evidence, that the allegations are untrue.
By filing such a complaint, he also assumes a significant legal risk. If a person brings a claim under Article 307(2) (defamation by false statements), but the statements are ultimately proven to be true, he may be exposed to liability under Article 156 of the Criminal Act (false accusation).
The deceased’s former manager confirmed Kim Soo-hyun’s claims at a press conference about the so-called pressure of the obligation to repay the loan. It was clarified that Gold Medalist or KSH was not compelled KSR to repay the interest-free loan from Gold Medalist. The procedure was entirely legal: the funds came from the company, which is not a banking institution issuing loans, so documentation was required to justify the postponement of repayment. This was especially relevant because she was no longer affiliated with Gold Medalist.
Kim Se-ui also filed a complaint against Kim Soo-hyun’s fandom for publicly accusing him of spreading lies and defaming him. However, the police dismissed his complaint. Conversely, KSH fans filed a complaint against Lee Jung-seop for spreading false information and defaming Kim Soo-hyun; the police confirmed the validity of the complaint and referred the case to prosecutors.
Additionally, the former art director at Gold Medalist testified to police that the photo used by the deceased’s family and Kim Se-ui to allege that KSH sent messages on KakaoTalk to the deceased was actually taken in 2020. This confirms that the messages attributed to Kim Soo-hyun could not have originated from him, leaving the deceased’s family and Kim Se-ui to explain why the sender was falsified.
Key developments include:
1. Lee Jung-seop was accused of spreading false information and defaming Kim Soo-hyun on social media following controversies involving Kim Sae-ron in 2025.
https://www.mk.co.kr/en/hot-issues/11956123
2. YouTuber Kwon Young-chan, who raised allegations of "embezzlement of hospital bills" and "grooming" against K, the late KSR’s former manager, was referred to the prosecution on charges of defamation under the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection.
https://m.entertain.naver.com/home/article/416/0000321380?spi_ref=m_entertain_x
3. The defamation complaint filed by Kim Se-ui (operator of Garo Sero Research Institute) against Kim Soo-hyun’s fan union was rejected by police.
https://www.allkpop.com/article/2026/01/defamation-complaint-filed-by-kim-se-eui-against-kim-soo-hyun-fan-union-dismissed-without-charges
4. The director who took Kim Soo-hyun’s profile photo confirmed that it was captured on April 3, 2020, and publicly released on June 15, 2020. Metadata from the original file was submitted as evidence. Therefore, the photo could not have appeared in KakaoTalk messages allegedly exchanged with the deceased in 2016. If the photo was inserted to misrepresent the conversation partner as KSH, the 2016 messages are demonstrably fabricated.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DP06o83j11s/?igsh=ZXZ5cTV3a3o0MXF2
With all the facts revealed… guess what’s next?
https://m.entertain.naver.com/home/article/311/0001985526
https://www.xportsnews.com/article/2122851
Nevertheless, Dinto’s legal representative continues to rely on contractual clauses that are not expressly stipulated in the agreement between the parties. It should be noted that terminating a contract without a legitimate reason may itself constitute a breach of contract attributable to Dinto.
Kim Soo-hyun’s legal representative from LKB & Partners explained:
“Unlike the first hearing, the presiding judge has changed this time. The court merely confirmed the matters previously discussed and recorded the procedural progress of the case before adjourning.”
The lawyer also stated:
“The court inquired about the status of Kim Soo-hyun’s complaint against Kim Se-ui, the operator of the YouTube channel Garo 0. However, no decision has yet been issued in that matter. We expect a ruling to be made in the near future.”
The defense further pointed out that, although the company announced the termination of the contract in March, Kim Soo-hyun’s promotional images reportedly remained on the brand’s Korean and Japanese websites and in Japanese retail stores until June.
In response, the plaintiff stated that all related promotional materials have since been removed and that local agencies in Japan were instructed to cease using the images. As both parties maintain their respective positions, the dispute appears far from resolution. The next hearing is scheduled for April 24, when further discussions on the merits of the case are expected to continue.
In essence, Dinto’s representative acknowledged that the company continued to use Kim Soo-hyun’s image even after officially terminating the collaboration and initiating legal proceedings against him, while still maintaining that it was the injured party. It should also be recalled that at the previous hearing the plaintiff increased the amount of damages claimed, and the judge at that time adopted an active role in the proceedings, expressly requesting Dinto to submit evidence supporting the alleged damages.
At today’s hearing, however, no such evidence was presented. Although the presiding judge has changed, the matters previously discussed remain recorded in the official minutes of the court session. Under the principles of civil procedure, any claim brought before the court must be substantiated by evidence. Accordingly, Dinto bears the burden of proving the existence and extent of the alleged damages and of demonstrating that its decision to terminate the collaboration (reportedly based on rumors) was justified and did not itself constitute a breach of contract that caused the alleged harm. Nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans.
https://sbsstar.net/article/N1008456953/youtuber-referred-to-prosecutors-for-defamation-over-embezzlement-claims-against-kim-saerons-exmanager#1
https://www.allkpop.com/article/2026/02/kim-soo-hyuns-korean-and-global-fan-union-donates-100-million-krw-to-celebrate-his-birthday
https://world.kbs.co.kr/service/contents_view.htm?lang=e&menu_cate=enternews&id=&board_seq=182800&page=238&board_code=
https://inquirersuper.com.ph/super-k/kim-soo-hyun-donates-100-million-won-for-covid-19-prevention/
https://share.google/z5uO2akC0i6eKkJEB
In an attempt to justify the desire to terminate the contract, the plaintiff - Cuck** - introduced a discussion about messages, debts, and photographs allegedly involving the late KSR, a line of argument that prompted “laughter” from the audience. After all, if such matters are indeed relevant, logic would suggest that the civil proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome of the criminal case. The judge therefore asked whether the plaintiff considered it preferable to wait for the criminal proceedings to be finalized. Likely overwhelmed by the many plot twists, the plaintiffs’ lawyer agreed that waiting might be better—despite his client’s professed interest in concluding the case as quickly as possible.
The court ultimately requested that both parties submit their positions on the legal nature of the alleged grounds for termination, the scope of the claimed damages, and the interpretation of the foreign contractual provisions.
The hearing was then adjourned until April 10, the curtain falling on a second act rich in judicial humor.
As every good comedy unfolds in several acts, so too does the famous Trial of the Cuck**s, which now advances to its next scene: one in which the plaintiffs must finally explain on what legal grounds they unilaterally terminated the contract. This task is made slightly more challenging by the inconvenient fact that the contract allows termination only in the event of a breach of contractual obligations, not on the basis of a controversy, scandal, or public drama.
As any unilateral termination must be effected through a formal notice identifying the specific contractual clauses allegedly breached, the court quite reasonably asked the plaintiffs’ lawyers to clarify a simple point: do they consider the email they sent, or the lawsuit itself, to constitute the notice of termination? The question was unavoidable, given that Cuck** is seeking damages without explaining how—or from what date—those damages were calculated. Moreover, the initial notification fails to meet the legal requirements of a termination notice, making it difficult to conclude that the contract was ever validly terminated in the first place. Through all this Shakespearean confusion, the judge demonstrated his determination to unravel the mystery of the plaintiff's complicated claim.
As most of you already know, Friday, January 16, marked yet another court appearance in the Cuckoo vs. GM and KSH lawsuit. It seems that in this new year we have gracefully transitioned from operetta to Shakespeare’s comic opera The Comedy of Errors.
The “famous” lawsuit filed by Cuck** against Kim Soo-hyun continues to challenge the court’s powers of interpretation. Although Cuck** seeks compensation from Kim Soo-hyun, there is, inconveniently, no contract with the actor, and the contract signed with GM does not even mention his name.
This naturally raises a small but troublesome question: in what capacity, exactly, did they sue KSH? The plaintiffs themselves appeared unsure, attempting to distinguish between the defendants with all the confidence - and success—of Shakespeare’s famously confused characters.
(To be continued)