Rain Says He Never Threatened Individual Accusing His Parents Of Fraud, Raises Questions About Accuser's Claims

November 30, singer and actor Rain responded to claims that his parents never paid back borrowed money though an official statement from Rain Company. In the statement, the agency clarifies that Rain never threatened the accuser and raises issue with the evidence and claims put forth by the accusing party.

Previously, on November 26, the accuser posted a statement on the national government petition board and various online communities claiming that Rain’s parents “borrowed 1.7 million won (approximately $15,200) worth of rice from the period of 1988 to 2004 and never paid it back.” They also claim that Rain’s parents borrowed 8 million won (approximately $7,100) in cash, for a total borrowed amount of 25 million won (approximately $22,300).

In a statement on November 28, Rain Company promised legal action and stated that if the amount borrowed can be confirmed, Rain would repay the money.

Here is the full statement from Rain Company made on November 30:

“Because we can’t respond to each and every one of the false claims about fraud [against Rain’s parents], in the event that the false claims continue, we will be revealing a related audio recording and submitting the original file to police.

“November 27, during Rain’s first meeting with the accuser, he never threatened them. Rain respectfully listened, and the two parties talked for about an hour in order to reach an amiable solution. Moreover, we have an audio recording of the meeting as well as their phone conversation.

“1. Regarding the ledger that the other party has revealed as evidence,

“November 29, the one-sided ledger revealed by the party claiming fraud is not a promissory note. It cannot be evidence that there was money borrowed, because the ledger is something that can be written by anyone.

“How can a person run a business for 10 years, not receive any money, and continue to pay for rice with credit? There will have been periodic payments. This is something that anyone who has done business in a market knows as common practice.

“Moreover, the money that they are claiming was borrowed needs to be calculated from promissory notes or other documents, because a ledger that is kept by one side can be written at will.

“Moreover, the reason why the ledger is hard to trust is this. According to the other party’s written claims (on the government petition board), they claim that they did business with Rain’s mother from 1988 through 2004, but the store [run by Rain’s mother] was closed in 1999.

“Moreover, Rain’s father had been traveling to the countryside and abroad to earn money, so the store was run solely by Rain’s mother. Afterward, Rain’s mother passed away in 2000.

“How could a deceased person run a store until 2004…

“All of these things are reasons why the ledger is suspicious.

“2. After first seeing news about the debt, we tried to arrange a meeting so that we could come to an amiable solution, but the other party made consistent false claims, held malicious interviews, and mocked Rain’s deceased mother, his family, and the company artists.

“Rain’s mother passed away due to an illness. Rain didn’t have money for hospital bills at the time, and this would have been so painful for Rain, who still feels guilt over his mother’s death. The person [claiming fraud] should, at the very least, not have spoken about Rain’s mother in the way they did.

“The other party’s claim that they want a sincere apology and to be paid back the original amount borrowed has disappeared, and instead they made insulting remarks about Rain’s parents and asked for four times (100 million won; approximately $89,000) the original amount borrowed.

“This is not an amicable request made through submission of legally sound evidence and following of procedure. Instead, they are misleading the public with a distorted post on online communities and giving the accused parties pain. This is clearly defamation and distribution of false information.

“3. We will say it once again. If we are shown the original promissory note, we will repay the full amount. (This would be to prevent any further damage.)

“4. Finally, in order to restore the reputation of Rain’s late mother, we will be taking legal action, even if it takes time.”

Source (1)