The ignition of this conflict was the opacity of the foundation's YouTube channel operation raised by Representative Kwak Sang-eon. As a result of analyzing the proportion of content on the foundation's channel, Rep. Kwak pointed out that there were overwhelmingly more criticisms and publication promotions by writer Rhyu Si-min than videos that shed light on former President Roh's philosophy and life. He likened this to ‘a bakery promoting its boss instead of bread,’ and raised strong questions about a situation where the foundation’s human and material resources are mobilized to solidify the position of a specific person. This raised the painful question of whether the purpose of the foundation's establishment was to inherit the values ​​of the deceased, or whether it had been reduced to a platform for a specific political influencer.

In response to this, writer Yoo Si-min chose to distance himself from the foundation by resigning as a standing advisor and discontinuing ‘Alileo Books’ just three days after the criticism was raised. Author Yoo claimed that he was concerned that his future critical activities would place a political burden on the foundation, but in fact, it can be interpreted as an intention to block controversy early by accepting strong pressure from the bereaved family. The fact that he, who has exerted tremendous influence as a key speaker of the pro-Roh and pro-Moon camps, is leaving the foundation reflects the current complex political landscape faced by symbolic figures of Roh Moo-hyun's spirit that dominated an era.

As the situation spread, the fact that former President Roh Moo-hyun's eldest son, Roh Geon-ho, personally stepped forward as a mediator adds to the weight of this situation. Mr. Noh Geon-ho called writer Yoo Si-min a “valuable intellectual” and highly praised his contributions, but at the same time, he made it clear that he was fully aware of Rep. Kwak Sang-eon’s critical awareness. He reaffirmed the principle that the foundation belongs to citizens and comrades, not the private property of the bereaved family, but acknowledged the lack of communication and fundamental differences in perspectives within the foundation. This suggests that even within the bereaved family, there are various concerns about the direction and role of the Roh Moo-hyun Foundation.

From a political perspective, the prevailing analysis is that this incident goes beyond a simple issue of foundation operation and is the result of a reflection of the age-old conflict between forces within the Democratic Party divided into ‘pro-name’ and ‘scream’ or ‘value-centered’ and ‘practical-centered.’ Coupled with criticism that writer Yoo's clear criticisms, such as the 'ABC theory', are encouraging division within the party, resistance to public assets such as foundations being perceived as the exclusive property of a specific camp has exploded. Now, the Roh Moo-hyun Foundation has gone beyond being a place of remembrance for the deceased and has gone to the test where it must prove what values ​​Korean politics should prioritize in the future.