Seo Yu-ri's boyfriend speaks out: "PD Choi Byung-gil, repay the money like a man" [Star Issue]

*This content was translated by AI.

Seo Yu-ri's boyfriend directly addressed the appeal released by her ex-husband, PD Choi Byung-gil.

On the 26th, Seo Yu-ri posted a lengthy message. The post, titled "Reply to Mr. Choi Byung-gil," appears to have been written by her younger boyfriend, who works in the legal field.

The writer stated regarding PD Choi Byung-gil's claims, "Although he maintains his intention to pay the settlement, expressing an intention and actually fulfilling it are entirely different matters. Emphasizing consistency in a situation where he ultimately did not show up for the third scheduled meeting lacks persuasiveness."

He continued, "A debtor cannot dictate the method of contact. The repayment schedule and method should be proposed first by the debtor, and it is up to the creditor to decide whether to accept them. Justifying blocking contact by reversing this order is difficult to accept."

The writer added, "Continuously releasing work activities and results while claiming an inability to even cover communication costs is inconsistent. If there is a will to repay, there must be at least a basic plan and execution. The expression of 'lack of ability' is merely a cover for the situation of failing to keep promises."

He further emphasized, "The counterpart to this debt is someone who was once family. Before the law, one must keep promises based on human ethics. Reopening contact and sitting down at the promised meeting is the minimum responsibility," urging him to repay like a man.

The two married in 2019 but divorced in June 2024. They have faced conflicts over financial issues since the divorce process began.

Seo Yu-ri has claimed that PD Choi Byung-gil repaid only 300 million won out of approximately 600 million won and has demanded payment of the remaining amount. She also stated that she assumed debts worth approximately 2 billion won during the divorce process and has already repaid a significant portion of them.

Reply to Mr. Choi Byung-gil

Hello. I am the person standing beside Ms. Seo Yu-ri. I have read the message you posted five days ago multiple times. It is not difficult to discern the intent behind each line without even digging into the subtext.

First, I would like to make one thing clear. This message is not written to express emotions, but to correct the facts. The more neatly your message is phrased, the more clearly the truth left empty between the sentences becomes apparent.

You have proudly stated that you have never once revoked your intention to pay the settlement. However, expressing an intention and fulfilling a promise are entirely different matters.

There has already been one agreement between you and the creditor's side, and a second, newly refined agreement has also clearly been established.

Furthermore, it is a clear fact that you directly promised the creditor's side that you would not enter into certain legal procedures. I will not write at length about how that promise was handled afterward.

However, I wish to note one thing. The image of someone who promised to sit down at the third meeting but ultimately disappeared, yet claims consistency in their intentions, cannot be read naturally from any angle.

The fact that what you have consistently maintained is not the intention to repay, but the very act of stepping back from the promised meetings, I believe readers of this message will realize on their own without my lengthy explanation.

You wrote that you had to block contact because the debtor repeatedly instructed the creditor's side to contact through a lawyer, yet you failed to follow that request. This point is where the most fundamental reversal of cause and effect occurs in this message, so I cannot help but address it.

The form of contact through a lawyer only gains meaning from the moment the debtor formally appoints an agent and the notice of engagement in the agent's office name reaches the creditor's side.

In a situation where neither the appointment of an agent nor the delivery of an engagement notice exists, justifying blocking contact because the debtor unilaterally designated a contact path for the creditor and the creditor did not follow that designation is nothing more than an attempt to exercise a power not granted to the debtor.

Does the person who should be fulfilling the promise have the right to instruct the form of contact to the person waiting for the promise? Rather, the opposite is the natural conclusion of this matter. The debtor is the one who should respectfully propose the repayment schedule, repayment method, and contact path, and the creditor is the one who decides whether to accept the proposal.

The attempt to construct the justification for blocking contact by reversing this order results in an excuse that no one except the debtor themselves can be persuaded by.

I would like to ask one more thing. Which lawyer exactly are you referring to when you so repeatedly mention that lawyer? If you are referring to your own agent, simply providing a one-line reply regarding the fact of engagement and the name of the office will immediately open the door for negotiation. If you are referring to the creditor's office, that office has never been closed for a single day, so you can simply reply in writing at this very moment.

The attempt to justify blocking contact by vaguely mentioning a lawyer that does not belong to either side merely serves to clearly reveal who is being blocked and who disappeared from the promised meeting.

Regarding your explanation that you are unable to pay simply because you lack the ability to generate income, I must honestly say I stopped and read it again for a long time. If someone who does not know the daily scenes you have been refining and presenting to the world reads only this message, anyone would feel sorry for your situation.

However, the daily scenes you have been directly refining and presenting to the world during the same period, the scenes of you refining new songs, the thickness of time spent facing equipment, and the consistency of repeatedly releasing the results of your work, do not easily align with the single line in this message claiming an inability to even cover communication costs.

A person's ability is not written in the bank account balance but is engraved in the flow of daily life, and that flow is a scene that the debtor themselves has been testifying to the world every day without the creditor needing to look into it.

What is required of the person entering into an agreement is to propose a repayment plan within their capacity in writing and to diligently fulfill it step by step. If you have never shown even a single step, the words 'lack of ability' are merely another term for avoiding the promise.

The appeal written in the final paragraph, not even asking for support but simply asking to be left alone, was read as the most intelligently placed sentence in the entire message. The image of the person who disappeared first from the promised meeting asking the person who has been waiting for the promise to remain silent cannot be read naturally from any angle.

The right to request silence is granted only to the person who kept the promise, not to the person standing aside from the promised meeting to ask the other party. To return the expression you frequently used in the main text as is, you should just repay like a man. Image and reputation are not restored by refining public sentences, but only by fulfilling the promise exactly as promised.

There are people in the world who, even while owing debts, ultimately uphold human ethics. When their circumstances do not allow, they politely inform the other party of their situation as they are, and as soon as they can get even a small amount of money in hand, they go to find the creditor first with that money. In front of such people, the creditor is the one who ends up bowing their head. This is the original nature of how debt flows between people. Where are you standing now?

You have cut off contact, left the promised meeting empty, refined your emotions with public sentences, and are asking for silence rather than support. Meanwhile, new songs are being refined, the results of your work are being repeatedly released to the world, and the scenes of daily life are being neatly organized and publicly revealed. While your time flows in that way, where do you think the time of the person who has been waiting for the promise has gone?

From the position of a man, I would like to make one direct request. A man's weight is not gained from the visible scenes of daily life, nor from the sincerity of refined sentences. Only when one reaches the position of taking full responsibility for the promise they have spoken with their own mouth until the end does a person become worthy of the title they bear.

Finally, I will ask one last question and step back. The person you are now turning your back on was once your person. You sat at the same table under the same roof, and for a period of time, you shared the closest position in life together. It is a promise with someone who was once family, not with anyone else in the world.

It is proper to repay debts to strangers based on human ethics, but have you ever looked at yourself in the mirror while turning your back on a promise with someone you once held closest? Please stand directly in front of that mirror just once.

Reopening the contact number you have now closed and sitting down again at the empty seat is not something imposed by the weight of the law, but the duty that one who was once a family member must grant themselves as a final obligation. The promise you are now turning your back on is a promise you must face first, before any debt in the world. Regaining human weight in front of the person you once held closest is not something done because someone told you to, but something you must do for yourself.

<© STARNEWS. All rights reserved. No reproduction or redistribution allowed.>

*This content was translated by AI.