South Korean police are actively investigating a number of lawsuits connected to actors Kim Sae Ron and Kim Soo Hyun, following the escalation of a controversial dating scandal. The situation has intensified public and media scrutiny, especially since the issue touches on sensitive allegations involving a relationship with a minor. What initially seemed like a minor rumor has now turned into a significant legal and social issue.
The scandal first made headlines in February 2025 and has since stirred a wave of accusations, backlash, and conspiracy theories. Public interest in the case has not waned, and many believe that only a fraction of the full story has surfaced. The situation has impacted the careers and reputations of those involved, leading to increased media attention and public debate.
According to a report by Edaily, South Korean authorities are currently pursuing 10 active cases related to the controversy. Of these, seven are under investigation by the Gangnam Police Station, while the other three are being handled by Seodaemun Police Station. These cases reflect legal complaints filed both by Kim Soo Hyun and representatives of the late Kim Sae Ron.
Kim Soo Hyun has lodged seven legal complaints, while Kim Sae Ron’s side has submitted three, according to the same report. One of the most serious allegations comes from Kim Sae Ron’s family, who claim that Kim Soo Hyun violated the Child Welfare Act. They have submitted alleged evidence, including audio clips, to support their claims.
Some of this audio material was reportedly released in collaboration with the YouTube channel Garo Sero Institute (also called Ga Se Yeon). In response, Kim Soo Hyun has filed a legal complaint against the channel, accusing them of defamation and stalking. His legal team also argues that the audio evidence has been digitally manipulated, possibly using AI tools.
The lawyer representing Kim Sae Ron’s family, Bu Ji Seok, is also facing controversy. He has been reported to the National Human Rights Commission of Korea over allegations of providing deceptive legal counsel. These developments have further complicated the legal landscape surrounding the case.
The dispute continues to evolve, with both sides presenting new claims and counterclaims. Legal experts and public officials have stated that all submitted evidence is being closely examined. The case has created a tense atmosphere, both in the courtroom and in the court of public opinion.
As of now, there are no clear signs of resolution. The legal proceedings remain in motion, and the outcome may have lasting implications for those involved. With high-profile figures at the center of the storm, the public remains closely tuned in, awaiting further updates on the
investigation.