Ko Ji-yong's associate: Heo Yang-im rejected installment plan for child support

As the legal conflict between SECHSKIES member Ko Ji-yong and his ex-wife Heo Yang-im expands to include child support, visitation rights, and the use of their son's photos and videos, an associate of Ko has stepped forward to directly refute the claims made by Heo's side.

Ko's side claims that the failure to pay child support was not a deliberate evasion but stemmed from deteriorating health and economic burdens following the divorce. They further asserted that they conveyed an intention to pay the overdue child support in installments, but this offer was rejected.

An associate of Ko, referred to as 'A', stated on the 17th, "On the 16th, we completed an application for a provisional injunction to prohibit interference with visitation rights and the use of the child's photos and videos against Heo Yang-im's side," adding, "As of now, there has been no contact from Heo's side."

Ko and Heo married in 2013 and had a son, Seung-jae, in 2014. The couple was well-known to the public as they appeared together on KBS2's "The Return of Superman," sharing their family's daily life. The couple was reported to have obtained a mutual divorce in April 2024, and they have recently entered legal proceedings regarding visitation rights and the disclosure of their son's photos and videos.

One of the most intense points of contention in this conflict is the issue of child support.

A explained that Ko's health deteriorated rapidly after the divorce, resulting in significant medical expenses, during which there was a period when he could not pay child support. In particular, Ko's side maintains that this should not be interpreted as an intentional evasion of parental responsibility.

A claimed, "Heo Yang-im's side sent a certification of contents regarding the unpaid child support. Since recovering my health this August, I have been faithfully paying child support, and I responded that I would pay the overdue amount in installments by adding an extra amount to the original sum, but I was rejected."

Furthermore, the associate refuted the claims made by Heo's side regarding Ko's income. A stated, "There is almost no income from TikTok, and the support for the elderly living alone was carried out using proceeds from T-shirt sales."

Ko's side explained that this contradicts the interpretation that he had the economic capacity to pay child support but used the money for other activities. However, the actual child support payment history, the scale of the unpaid amount, and the specific details of the certifications of contents exchanged between the two sides will be confirmed during future legal proceedings.

The dispute over the son's portrait rights and the use of his photos and videos is also ongoing.

According to A, Heo's side first raised the issue by requesting that Ko's side not use the son's photos and videos. In response, Ko's side also sent a certification of contents, questioning the fact that Heo's side continues to use the son's photos and videos for purposes such as hospital promotion.

It is reported that Ko's side views this not merely as an emotional conflict between parents, but as a matter of what scope the portrait and personal information of a minor child should be disclosed and utilized.

Ko also personally explained the background that led to this application for a provisional injunction.

Ko stated, "I endured it because I thought there were many things I could not even tell my ex-wife. I sent two responses via certification of contents requesting to pay the unpaid child support in installments, but since Heo Yang-im's side filed for a provisional injunction and a petition for visitation rights on September 5, I could no longer overlook it."

He added, "In a situation where I am striving to recover my health and return to social life, I could no longer endure it as the lawsuit proceeded without any dialogue taking place."

Synthesizing the explanation from Ko's side, this legal response is not limited to a simple child support dispute. Ko is raising the issue that visitation with his son is not proceeding smoothly, and simultaneously argues that he must prevent his son's photos and videos from being used in ways to which he does not consent. The scope of the dispute is widening as child support payments, visitation rights, and the protection of the child's portrait and privacy become intertwined.

In particular, conflicts surrounding a minor child during a divorce are sensitive, as the welfare of the child must be prioritized regardless of the parties' emotions. Child support is not a simple debt between parents but an obligation for the child's stable life, and visitation is also a key issue regarding how to guarantee the relationship between the child and the non-custodial parent.

In the case of Ko and Heo, there is also the unique factor that their son's growth was largely disclosed to the public through past broadcasts. As the child's image was known through shows the couple appeared on and subsequent SNS and YouTube content, there is a possibility that their positions will clash over the extent to which past disclosure methods can be maintained after the divorce.

Ko's side is not denying the fact of the unpaid child support itself, but rather emphasizing the circumstances and his current intention to pay. In other words, while acknowledging there was a period when he could not pay due to deteriorating health, he maintains that he has resumed payments and intends to pay the arrears in installments.

On the other hand, Heo's specific rebuttals and the materials submitted to the court by both sides, as well as the rulings in the provisional injunction and visitation rights proceedings, must be confirmed through separate legal procedures. It is impossible to determine the intentionality of the unpaid child support, whether visitation was obstructed, or the legality of using the child's photos and videos based solely on one side's explanation.

This case serves as an example of how the private sphere of a celebrity's divorce intersects with parental rights and duties and the protection of a minor child's privacy. While a child's daily life disclosed through family variety shows and SNS was once consumed as friendly family content, after the parents separate, even a single photo or video can take on different legal and ethical meanings.

Ultimately, the key points to be confirmed in the legal proceedings are the actual duration and amount of the unpaid child support, the details of any payment negotiations, the circumstances under which visitation was restricted, and the purpose and consent behind the use of the son's photos and videos. As the currently released information represents the rebuttals and claims of Ko's side, the facts are expected to be clarified through future court rulings and the objective evidence submitted by both parties.