“I didn’t know.” With those three words, actor Kim Seon Ho attempted to close the door on controversy. But instead of clarifying the issue, his explanation has only fueled criticism, with many arguing that ignorance is being used to conveniently obscure accountability.
It was recently revealed that Kim Seon Ho received settlements for his entertainment activities through an unregistered one-person agency, SH2, rather than directly as personal income. After the matter surfaced, he stated that he was unaware of any issues, explaining that he had refiled his income and paid additional taxes. While voluntary tax payment is the bare minimum expectation, the repeated insistence that he “didn’t know” has raised more doubts than sympathy. To critics, it feels less like transparency and more like trying to cover the sky with the palm of one’s hand.
Reports indicate that Kim personally requested his former agency to transfer his earnings to SH2, a corporation established in January 2024 under a family member’s name. If he truly had no understanding of corporate structures or tax implications, why make the extra effort to divert payments through a separate legal entity at all? Both the agency and the actor would have faced additional administrative hassle. The claim that he was unaware of the tax advantages of a corporation where income is taxed at a significantly lower rate has been met with widespread skepticism.
On February 4, Kim issued another statement through his current agency, Fantagio, saying he deeply regretted establishing and maintaining the corporation for a year without fully understanding how it operated. Notably absent, however, was any explanation of what roles his parents who reportedly received monthly salaries ranging from millions of won to even higher amounts played within the company.
To many observers, Kim’s explanation feels less like reflection and more like calculated ambiguity. By leaning on ignorance, he appears to be attempting to demonstrate a lack of intent to evade taxes, potentially minimizing legal consequences such as penalties or deeper investigations by the National Tax Service. While such a “don’t know” strategy may reduce legal exposure, assuming the public will accept it at face value comes across as arrogant rather than apologetic.
Under Korean tax law, income earned through individual activities can be taxed at rates as high as 49.5 percent, while corporate income is taxed at around 19 percent. Entertainers, often registered as individual business operators, are obligated to pay nearly half their earnings in taxes. Reporting entertainment income as corporate revenue can therefore be interpreted as tax avoidance, a practice the National Tax Service categorizes as “income diversion.”
The National Tax Service has taken a hard stance on similar cases in the past. Another artist under the same label, Cha Eun Woo, was previously investigated after routing entertainment income through a one-person agency tied to a family-run business. That case reportedly resulted in a massive tax penalty of 20 billion won, the largest ever imposed on a Korean entertainer.
The fact that Kim’s former agency complied with transferring settlements to SH2 strongly suggests a clear and deliberate request on his part. Corporate settlement structures are not casually adopted; they usually involve consultation with tax accountants or financial professionals because of their significant tax implications. Yet SH2 reportedly shared the same address as Kim’s residence, with no visible office or management staff raising further questions about whether it functioned as anything more than a paper entity.
Critics also point out that setting up a corporation is far from a spontaneous decision. It requires drafting articles of incorporation, registering directors, opening corporate bank accounts, issuing corporate cards, and establishing a tax reporting system. Despite claiming ignorance, Kim allegedly paid salaries to his parents through the corporation and issued corporate cards actions that suggest a detailed level of operational involvement inconsistent with his stated lack of understanding.
What further undermines his defense is the timing. SH2 remained unregistered until early this year, even as public scrutiny intensified around celebrities operating unregistered one-person agencies. Numerous cases were exposed last year, followed by warnings and media coverage about potential investigations. Yet Kim made no apparent effort to properly register or clarify the purpose of his company during that period.
Unlike other entertainers who ran one-person agencies out of necessity often with actual staff and legitimate management operations SH2’s purpose remains unclear. The company was reportedly led and staffed by Kim’s parents, with no employees meeting the legal requirements for an entertainment management business. If the corporation was intended to support theater or artistic activities, critics argue that documentation and transparency should have been provided. As it stands, what SH2 actually did remains unknown.
Perhaps most damaging is the revelation that Kim paid salaries to his parents through the corporation, only for that money to allegedly flow back into his own account. Despite repeatedly saying he “didn’t know,” the corporation appears to have been actively and strategically used in multiple ways.
Some commentators argue that a more honest statement acknowledging awareness of corporate tax benefits, admitting misjudgment, and asking for leniency after corrective action might have resonated better. Instead, Kim Seon Ho’s insistence on feigned innocence has struck many as overly transparent in its intent, leaving the public less convinced and more disillusioned than before.
Sources: Nate