Kim Geon-hee and Kim Ye-seong Economic Community, targeting the special prosecution of the Housekeeper Gate.

Introduction: The name that has emerged as 'Housekeeper Gate,' Kim Ye-seong

In the summer of 2025, a name associated with a new political and judicial issue that shook South Korean society has resurfaced: Kim Ye-seong, known as 'Kim Geon-hee's housekeeper.' He is no longer an anonymous figure. Kim Ye-seong is a close aide, business partner, asset manager, and even referred to as part of an 'economic community' for Kim Geon-hee. Recently, with the Kim Geon-hee special prosecution team starting their investigation, his name has once again come to the forefront, causing a shock in South Korean society as various financial flows and connections to power figures have emerged. However, from the very beginning of the investigation related to Kim Ye-seong, an unusual atmosphere was detected. The search warrant requested by the special prosecution was rejected by the court. In a situation where public suspicion is growing, the hands of the investigative agencies being tied implies more than just a simple investigation halt. This essay aims to provide a comprehensive view of the reality of Kim Ye-seong, his relationship with Kim Geon-hee, business dealings, financial flows, and the surrounding legal and political context.

The Longstanding Relationship with Kim Geon-hee – The Origins of the Economic Community

The connection between Kim Ye-seong and Kim Kun-hee dates back at least to the early 2010s. The two are known to have first linked at the EMBA program at Seoul National University, and since then, they have consistently interacted, being referred to as 'brother and younger brother' or 'older sister and younger brother.' The fact that their relationship goes beyond mere personal friendship is evident in the case of attracting sponsorships for the Kobana Contents exhibition that occurred between 2012 and 2013. At that time, the corporation Roburst, led by Kim Ye-seong, along with Inter Valley, participated as production investors for the exhibition, but suffered losses due to the project's failure, and KBS Media ended up shouldering their losses as a form of compensation. The problem lies in the strange agreement surrounding this loss compensation. KBS agreed to fully cover the losses and, at the request of Kim Ye-seong and Lee Hee-seung, reinvest in the Kobana Contents exhibition project. This can be seen as a case of 'publicizing losses and privatizing profits.' At that time, Yoon Seok-youl held significant power as the chief of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, and a possible connection with then-auditor Ko Dae-young was also raised. Thus, Kim Ye-seong had already formed a very close economic network with Kim Kun-hee as business partners over a decade ago, and this relationship has continued thereafter.

Forgery, Loans, Fake CEO - The Reality of Kim Ye-seong

The incident that marks the official entry of Kim Ye-seong's name into the media and investigation records is the forgery of a balance certificate involving Choi Eun-soon. Kim Ye-seong is alleged to have forged a balance certificate worth 34.8 billion won to assist Choi Eun-soon in obtaining a loan, claiming that he received no compensation in return. In court, he described it as an act done “at the risk of his life,” but he also stated that “there was no reward.” This makes it a key clue that interprets Kim Ye-seong as a voluntary accomplice or a figurehead in an economically dependent relationship. He has been involved with numerous corporations, including Robust, Interveil, and Bimica, and the addresses of these corporations are either the same or overlapping, with their boards of directors also being intertwined. This suggests that Kim Ye-seong is not an independent businessman but rather serves as an asset management tool or a business front for the Kim Geon-hee family. Additionally, Kim Ye-seong's name repeatedly appears in real estate-related incidents such as the land in Dochon-dong and loans in Gongheung district. Particularly, the circumstances under which Interveil purchased land in Yangpyeong and then transferred it to Choi Eun-soon illustrate that this corporation was used as a nominal entity, in other words, as a ‘front corporation.’

The 'Bimaika' Incident - Allegations of Fund Flow and Involvement of Large Corporations

The rent-a-car startup 'BeMyCar,' which Kim Ye-sung effectively operated, has emerged as a pivotal example of his involvement in an economic community. This company later changed its name to 'IMS Mobility' and became the center of suspicious financial flows. From the early stages of its establishment, BeMyCar laid the groundwork for growth by receiving vehicle rentals from Deutsche Motors, loans from Shinhan Savings Bank, and indirect support from Kim Geon-hee's side. However, the company's operational situation deteriorated, with accumulated losses exceeding 34 billion won. Nevertheless, in 2023, the company attracted an investment of 18.4 billion won from Hyosung HS, Kakao Mobility, and Korea Securities Finance, among others. The fact that this includes Korea Securities Finance, which has the characteristics of a quasi-public institution, raises suspicions that the investment is not merely a venture sponsorship but could also indicate possible connections with the core of the government. Additionally, many of the companies that invested during this period were under judicial risk due to investigations by the Fair Trade Commission and prosecutions. As a result, even after securing funding, the company failed to normalize its business, and Kim Ye-sung realized a personal profit of 4.6 billion won by selling his shares. The investment funds disappeared along with the company, and no one took actual responsibility.

Investigative Restraint and the Attitude of the Judiciary - Who is Stopping What?

The special prosecutor's investigation into the Kim Ye-seong case has faced strong friction from the outset. The search warrant requested by the special prosecutor related to Kim Ye-seong was dismissed by the Seoul Central District Court. Considering that search warrants are typically issued over 99% of the time, this is an extremely rare occurrence. During a briefing, Deputy Special Prosecutor Moon Hong-joo, a former judge, unusually voiced strong concerns about the situation, which is typically not criticized publicly by judges. This raised suspicions that the court might be intentionally obstructing the investigation. Furthermore, it has been pointed out that of the four warrant judges currently at the Seoul Central District Court, three have been transferred from the Suwon District Court. This reflects an abnormal concentration of personnel in district courts and leads to concerns that judges with specific political leanings or ruling tendencies are monopolizing warrant tasks. The special prosecutor is facing a crisis as the court has dismissed even the warrant related to Kim Geon-hee, citing that it is not a target of the investigation, which could shake the direction and legitimacy of the investigation itself. Moreover, the suspect Kim Ye-seong has already departed for Vietnam, and his family and office have completely disappeared. The golden time for the investigation is slipping away, and the court's dismissal decision effectively blocks the acquisition of evidence.

Conclusion: Is Kim Ye-seong a 'butler' or an accomplice?

Considering all of these circumstances, Kim Ye-seong should rightly be evaluated as a core member of an economic community that goes beyond a simple business partner or asset manager. He repeatedly appears in the asset flows and interest-related businesses of the Kim Geon-hee family, playing a key role in forgery, fund receipt, corporation establishment, and operations. However, the investigations and legal judgments so far have tended to view these connections as isolated incidents, making it difficult to access the substantive truth. If the court dismisses even basic investigative procedures like search and seizure based on political considerations or personnel biases, the very reason for the special prosecutor's existence could be undermined. This case exemplifies how power and capital collude and use public systems to pursue private interests, transcending the personal corruption of Kim Geon-hee. Kim Ye-seong is not just a simple steward. He is deeply involved in the financial management system of the core power structure, and clarifying his statements and actions is an essential process for judicial justice and transparency in South Korea. If the independence and justice of the prosecution and judicial system is not restored even after the change of government, 'Kim Ye-seong' will remain not just a name but an eternal shadow within the power structure of South Korea.