Actor Kim Soo-hyun sparked fresh controversy by claiming that the alleged KakaoTalk messages about his relationship with the late actress Kim Sae-ron were forged messages. Consequently, forged messages now drive public and legal debate over the truth behind those chat logs. At a press conference on March 31, 2025, in Seoul, Kim firmly denied the accusations that he flirted with or dated Kim Sae‑ron while she was underage. Furthermore, he submitted the original chat logs to a forensic linguistic agency and argued the results show the messages did not originate from the same person.
The controversy erupted in late March when the bereaved family of Kim Sae‑ron released reconstructed KakaoTalk messages from 2016, claiming the actress was only 17 in the exchanges. They argued those messages show romantic and intimate text content. In addition, the family’s lawyer clarified that they reformatted the messages for clarity without altering the content. In response, Kim’s camp commissioned a forensic analysis. The report confirms that someone likely fabricated the 2016 messages, which show a low match to his confirmed 2025 communications. Moreover, the analysis indicates the person in 2016 chats differs from the individual in alleged 2018 messages.
The public reaction has been intense. Many netizens have speculated on the timeline, authenticity, and motives. Some cite matching nails and hairstyles in photos to bolster the family’s case. However, others question the evidentiary process and whether the original unedited chat logs even exist. Meanwhile, Kim’s agency insists the pair only dated briefly in 2019, after Kim Sae‑ron reached adulthood, nullifying earlier allegations. They also vow to pursue legal action against parties spreading false claims. At the same time, the family has signaled continued efforts to press the case and demand accountability.
Legal experts warn that identity forensics and linguistic analysis may shape future celebrity disputes. Indeed, the case underscores how digital communication can become contested evidence. Observers note this dispute might influence how courts accept or reject reconstructed chat logs in defamation or civil cases. For the entertainment industry, the scandal raises deeper concerns. Therefore, studios and talent agencies might now impose stricter data verification protocols to protect artists from false allegations. Additionally, celebrity mental health and posthumous reputation management could gain renewed focus.
Looking ahead, both sides are likely to pursue legal verification and countersuits. Kim may ask the courts to block the public use of disputed logs unless the originals are provided. Conversely, the family may demand deeper forensic transparency or third‑party audits. Ultimately, forged messages have become the pivot on which this conflict turns. The outcome may set a precedent for how digital evidence is treated in South Korean defamation and celebrity cases going forward.
