God of Commerce Furious at Lawmaker Insisting He Delete Gaeseyeon Channel
원본 (Korean)
Translation + Context
FT = ForbiddenTome — tap to see Korean slang explained
Regarding recent controversies, I feel that misunderstandings from the public and media have been accumulating—whether or not the person in question intended it—and now they're crossing the line. And since these misunderstandings are affecting public opinion on work I need to do going forward, I want to set the record straight on necessary points. I believe this person was a victim of serious crimes by Kim Se-ye, and I expect that once investigation results come out, they will recover their honor accordingly. Also, last year I publicly stood up for actor Kim Soo-hyun's grievances, and at the National Assembly audit where we were invited but didn't attend, they spoke up not just for themselves but for us too. Because of that, I still feel grateful for how much social interest in the Kim Se-ye case investigation has increased. However, this issue isn't that simple. Is this really a problem that can be solved and wrapped up by one person's individual effort? If another identical channel appears after "the Kim Se-ye era," will we really then go around finding shareholders, buy their shares, send the representative to prison, and take over the channel as a solution? Is that a generalizable solution model? The problem isn't that simple. That's why I think we need the straightforward approach of law and principles, even if it's slower. That's also why I'm bringing this up now, having waited over a month and a half until this moment when the atmosphere is best with Kim Se-ye's arrest.
To reiterate, it's meaningful that Jang Shin acquired a 50% stake in Gase Yeon to fight against Kim Se-ui. And I acknowledge his contribution in raising public awareness about Kim Se-ui's case. However, the idea that acquiring a 50% stake alone allows him to take control of Gase Yeon, or the understanding that he's acquired a stake worth tens of billions of won, is likely far from the truth.
The essence of this case is not a stake dispute. It's the repeated crimes Gase Yeon has committed, and that such a structure must disappear. The essence is the criminal acts committed by Kim Se-ui and Gase Yeon, and making it so that investigators and courts properly hold them accountable for those crimes. He can just do his part in his own way. I'll do the same. Either way, if it's accomplished more effectively and quickly, that itself could be a good thing. However, I'm very concerned that public opinion along the lines of "since Jang Shin will take over and wrap it up anyway, we don't need to do anything" is already forming widely. Is this really a problem that can be solved and resolved by one person's individual performance? If another identical channel like 'post-Gase Yeon' appears next time, will we then go around tracking down shareholders to buy stakes, send the CEO to prison, and take over the channel to resolve it? Is that a generalizable solution model? The problem isn't that simple. That's why, even if it's slower, I believe we ultimately need the straightforward approach of law and principle. - Go Sang-rok (Brief view)
Garo Sero Research Institute
원본 (Korean)
Translation + Context
0:00 · on-screen text
Kookmin Bank 441501-01-478369 (Jangsin Company) Review Jangsin Mall - Go directly Popular · 3.9K views
0:00
The interim director lawsuit is ongoing.
0:03
The interim director lawsuit is ongoing, but
0:05
Why are you telling me to delete my channel?
0:08
Why are you telling me to delete Ga Se-hyun's channel?
0:12
It's true that Kim Haeng-jang existed, right?
0:17
[[Nah|아니-korean]], what I don't understand is
0:19
Don't you have legal knowledge?
0:25
Public opinion is saying to delete Ga Se-hyun's channel
0:28
Why do you keep inciting people like this?
0:31
I'll take care of it myself.
0:34
If you had legal knowledge,
0:36
You shouldn't bring this up at this timing.
0:38
Come on guys, look at this.
0:00 · on-screen text
Kookmin Bank 441501-01-478369 (Jangshib Company) Go directly to Simsajangsin Mall Popular • 4K Views
0:00
There's the judge, there's me, and there's Kim Se-hee. That's how the trial will proceed. We're in the middle of a provisional director appointment lawsuit.
0:07
But yo, bros, I'm gonna go to court and delete that Ga Se-hyun channel. Please appoint a provisional director ASAP.
0:17
Is the judge stupid or something?
0:22
Stupid? You're giving a provisional director to someone who approached this as a hostile M&A relationship?
0:30
To someone who's trying to delete the channel?
0:34
You're appointing a representative director to someone trying to delete the Ga-ro-Se-ro Lab channel? In court?
0:00 · on-screen text
Kookmin Bank 441501-01-478369 (Jangsin Company) Go directly to Jangsan Jangsin Mall Popular • 4K views
0:00
I keep shouting that I'm gonna keep changing the channel itself to Crossword Business Research Institute and sell meal kits
0:08
But the court says they're in an adversarial relationship.
0:11
That guy is currently in a lawsuit with Kim Se-hee.
0:15
It's insanely difficult to not appoint someone who's constantly in adversarial litigation as a representative director
0:20
And on top of that, you keep demanding the channel be deleted?
0:23
What?
0:25
I keep shouting that I'm gonna change it to a meal kit channel, so who the hell are you to tell me to delete the channel, dude!
The Lawmaker says the God of Commerce's method of acquiring Gaeseyeon shares isn't the straightforward way—
Even if slow, the proper legal approach following law and principle is necessary.
Asking whether he'll offer shares to shareholders next time a cyber vigilante shows up,
arguing that slow but proper legal methods should be used.
And he's running a PR campaign saying the Gaeseyeon channel must be deleted.
This is what pissed off the God of Commerce—
To sum it up: He's pursuing a provisional director lawsuit to remove Kim Seyee as the CEO of Gaeseyeon and become CEO himself.
But if someone says to the judge "I'll delete the channel," would the judge actually hand him the CEO position?
Would a judge side with someone who openly comes to destroy the Gaeseyeon channel and delete it?
Everyone already knows he's in an adversarial situation with Kim Seyee right now.
The court battle to take away the CEO position is already intense,
and the fact that he keeps saying he'll rebrand Gaeseyeon as "Horizontal & Vertical Commerce Research Institute" and do meal kit business—
that's him trying to appeal that he's not trying to destroy Gaeseyeon but maximize its profits.
So why would they tell him to delete the channel?
And through the proper legal route, it took Kim Gunmo 7 years to restore his reputation. So without buying Gaeseyeon shares and going the legal route, how many more years should he waste fighting Kim Seyee? That's his counter-argument.
YouTuber Suddenly Tears Up at His Older Brother's Wedding
661615 days agoby playfulseal516019
Post on Women's Forum About Younger Brother Facing Potential Prison Time
821415 days agoby peppypanda520052
Dubai King Fires Officials Because They Didn't Pick Him Up
142715 days agoby snappycrane509511
The People Who Emerged to Defend Starbucks After the Starbucks Incident
581215 days agoby brightmole349670
The Dream Light Patissier Merchandise Sale is Causing Chaos These Days...
60716 days agoby snappypanda737297
Did this Starbucks employee sell the Earth itself in a past life...?
1301916 days agoby zippycrane555912
MC Mong Claims Unfair Treatment: "I Got Military Exemption Before Even Pulling My Teeth"
90717 days agoby sparklycrane538613
The moment the game developer found out the photographer was Korean
1221917 days agoby happyduck648513- —
The Period Drama Lead Actually Played a Stalker Perfectly lol
901417 days agoby livelyseal890639 
What Michael Jackson Did After Visiting Korea
72817 days agoby happyfrog705039
Can't Figure Out Their Own Gender, Confused About Which Bathroom to Use
792417 days agoby breezyquail332258
Why the US Started the Iran War
751317 days agoby sparklyseal219503
Update on Joseonjok Caregivers
712118 days agoby warmdeer393817
Someone's setup is a guy who's been taking it easy—should I meet him?
1421618 days agoby cheerymoose741919
🐴 Women activists really built such a great world
1243318 days agoby snappycrow376501
YouTube Premium changes "No ads" to "Fewer ads" in their pitch
1421018 days agoby fluffyquail290233
[Updates] QWER
1121818 days agoby livelynewt921090
The 20.7 Billion Won Gwanghwamun "Garden of Remembrance" in Detail
1121618 days agoby jollybunny169807
Prosecuting AI-generated porn is just ridiculous enforcement priorities
982119 days agoby gleefulseal657643
How Nyanyong's Doing These Days
891219 days agoby gigglypanda877881
15 comments
He blocked comments on some posts on the channel.
Lawyer, do your job—why are you sticking your nose in other people's business??
He's basically appealing to 'cut me some slack'
On that post, apparently the top comment was "So the God of Commerce has the power?" and he pinned it before deleting it lmaoooo his intentions became transparent as hell. When asked why he deleted the pinned comment, he answered: "At first, comment brigades came and slandered me in every way, and I really felt that force. But since those attacks aren't based on facts, I don't need to be afraid, and I'm not a powerless person either, so I deleted it. No need to look like a victim. And I don't want to unnecessarily provoke angry people. Though I appreciate many aspects of this." ...Comment brigades lol lmao
lmaooo the 'God of Commerce' title has me dying, this reads like a Netflix drama premise
The other side doesn't follow the law at all but no way you're telling him to do it the proper way lmao
Wait, if he deletes it, couldn't Kim Seyee hit him with a breach of fiduciary duty charge? lmaooo Seems like he only wrote this from his own perspective?
Yeah and the fact that he was silent all this time and suddenly does this doesn't make sense either
Like it's not some glitchy company—he legitimately bought those shares through a transaction lmaooo
No way you get arrested and that's it, so what's this about deleting the channel? You guys really like censorship huh
I think lawyers are a profession with high intelligence but the lowest ethical standards on average
That's why there are so many lawyer jokes in America
Honestly just personal opinion, but even if deleted from an extinction perspective, Kim Seyee can just open another channel lol subscribers will follow anyway, so maybe just holding the channel hostage and shaking it is better
I don't get why the God of Commerce is even mad—no one asked him to delete the channel. The God is fighting for the CEO position of the channel, and the lawyer is fighting for channel deletion—they're just on two tracks. The God wants the channel and should wait with his hands down. If anything, the stronger the deletion pressure gets, wouldn't that be good for the God? The logic becomes "give the CEO position to the God or the channel gets deleted," giving it more force.
To take down Kim Seyee, he'd need to actually acquire the Gaeseyeon corporation and analyze it—deleting the channel would prevent that analysis itself. Plus Gaeseyeon shares are currently 50-50 between the God and Kim Seyee, so he can't vote Kim Seyee out as CEO.
Isn't taking the CEO position about controlling the channel's operations? If the channel's deleted, he can't analyze it and stuff, right? Were you trying to become provisional CEO to watch private videos? I haven't heard that—the God is mad not about analyzing if the channel gets deleted, but about what happens to the provisional CEO position if someone says they'll delete the channel.
Wouldn't stronger deletion pressure actually be good for the God? The logic becomes "give the CEO position to the God or the channel gets deleted"—completely unrelated. The lawyer's position is demanding channel deletion regardless of who the CEO is, so the God doesn't benefit from that argument. The Gaeseyeon shares are his own money that he bought himself—if a third party comes out and forms public opinion to delete his property, of course he'd be mad. Besides, as a major shareholder of Gaeseyeon locked in a CEO battle with Kim Seyee, he can't and shouldn't agree with channel deletion—that opinion contradicts his position.
The lawyer Koh Sang-rok did join mid-case; it seems like he's just sticking to principles. In the Kook Dong-ho case, that whistleblower lawyer was a woman + had school violence victim credibility, and other lawyers were like "please be careful"; when she just keeps talking, her followers would rush in and curse the victim—the lawyers were scared. But this guy kept going, and even when people pointed out his credentials and grades, he kept insisting "please be careful." Might be a bit conservative? But the God is tanking hits and is himself a victim, so he's furious. Their goals seem opposed. The lawyer isn't his client so he's just talking about legal principles, but the God's lawyers are his clients so they proceed according to his goals. These two need to talk it out.
Usually people talk easily when it's not their problem. If that lawyer bought all the shares himself and was going to shut it down, that'd be different
WAIT this is actually insane 😭 a lawmaker really tried to tell a deity to delete their channel??? the audacity
this is either the most unhinged thing i've read today or the best satire and honestly i'm not sure which
commerce gods stay winning fr, you can't tell them nothing 💀💀
The God of Commerce uses such bold and creative methods that all the processes of humiliating Kim Seyee have been legal. That lawyer, as Kim Soo-hyun's legal representative, probably tried hard but has nothing to show for it as an achievement—this is a classic case of quietly laying a spoon on someone else's table and making political noise.
Like seriously what changes if the channel gets deleted lmaooo what other method is there to delete channels? What kind of leap in logic is this nonsense???
okay but why is no one talking about what Gaeseyeon even is??? context please someone