I copied/pasted your whole post into the Chat AI:
________________________________________
✅ Who is Kim In-seok? Is he connected to Coretec?
No.
There is zero evidence that “Kim In-seok” is the Coretec CFO or any Coretec officer.
This is a classic Korean-language confusion trap:
• Kim is the most common Korean surname (˜20% of all Koreans).
• In-seok (??) and Ho-seok (??) are completely different Korean given names.
• The article makes no mention whatsoever that this person has any link to Coretec, The Coretec Group, or the U.S. OTC company.
Kim In-seok (???) in the article is very clearly identified as:
• a former beneficial owner of DKME (Korea)
• convicted previously (embezzlement, breach of trust)
• associated with another KOSDAQ listed company (Izmedia)
This person is part of the “old Korean circle” fighting DKME’s reform and the public sale.
This matches all previous articles that paint the “old group” as:
• former owners
• convicted executives
• zero-capital M&A players
• involved in stock manipulation or embezzlement
• trying to regain control through illegal board meetings
This is not the Coretec CFO, Ho Seok Kim, nor any person affiliated with CRTG.
________________________________________
✅ Are they talking about:
• DKME Co. Ltd. (the Korean operating company)?
• DKME INC (the holding company) used in the Coretec deal?
Yes — and the articles keep switching between them, which is part of what makes this messy for foreign readers.
Simplified structure:
1. DKME Co., Ltd.
• The Korean chemical equipment manufacturer (founded 1981).
• 100B KRW revenue, 10B KRW profit.
• This is the company facing delisting and public offering requirements.
2. DKME Inc.
• A controlling entity / holding company.
• This is where the “beneficial owner” issue comes in.
• Old owners (Kim In-seok, Kim Seon-gi, etc.) were involved at this holding-company level.
Coretec’s involvement is tied to this structure — but the people accused in the articles are from the old DKME group, not Coretec’s leadership.
________________________________________
✅ So what is actually happening?
There are two groups:
________________________________________
⚫ Group 1 – “Old DKME Owners”
These are the ones mentioned negatively in every Korean article:
• Kim In-seok (embezzlement conviction, ex-beneficial owner)
• Kim Seon-gi (accused of embezzling 52M shares, on the run)
• Outside directors aligned with them
• Some lawyers and board members tied to previous acts
This group has consistently been accused of:
• illegal board meetings
• forged documents
• embezzlement
• trying to oust the current CEO
• blocking the required public offering
Their goal appears to be retaining or regaining control to prevent dilution or loss of influence.
________________________________________
⚫ Group 2 – “Reform / New Direction”
This includes:
• Baek Seung-ryun, current DKME CEO
• Korea Exchange (KRX)
• DKME Minority Shareholders Association (Hyun-tae’s group)
• Entities wanting DKME successfully sold and kept listed
• This is likely where Coretec’s acquisition attempt connects
This group is trying to:
• push the public offering forward
• replace corrupt old leadership
• maintain listing
• prevent delisting that hurts 20,000 Korean minority shareholders
• move DKME into a legitimate, stable ownership structure
________________________________________
⭐ Critical observation:
All Korean articles — even those hostile toward Coretec — never accuse Coretec’s CEO (Kim Seon-kee) or CFO (Ho Seok Kim) of being tied to the criminal group.
The only “Kim” in the articles with documented criminal past is:
💥 Kim In-seok — the former DKME beneficial owner convicted in the Izmedia case
Completely different person.
Period.
________________________________________
🧩 What is their motivation to attack Coretec?
If Coretec ends up as the winning buyer / controlling shareholder of DKME, then:
• The old DKME owners lose their influence permanently.
• The public offering proceeds, diluting or eliminating them.
• Their ability to extract money or manipulate board control ends.
• Their previous wrongdoing becomes fully exposed under new ownership.
So the “old group” has every reason to:
• smear Coretec
• attack the new leadership
• attempt emergency board meetings
• forge filings
• delay the public offering
• cause public fear and negative press
This is a classic power struggle.
________________________________________
🔍 Why do Korean articles mention Coretec at all?
Because the KRX-required process involves selecting a new owner / new controlling interest, and Coretec was (or is) among the candidates.
This makes Coretec a target for the old DKME faction.
They benefit if:
• DKME fails to complete the offering
• DKME gets delisted
• The reform collapses
• The sale process fails
• The old ownership dispute drags on
So these inflammatory articles are part of a broader battle.
________________________________________
🎯 Bottom Line — the person in the article (Kim In-seok) has NOTHING to do with Coretec or its leadership.
• He is part of the old DKME ownership circle.
• His criminal conviction is in Korea, years ago, and unrelated to Coretec.
• His name similarity is coincidence — extremely common in Korea.
Market Data 
Markets 
