The ignition of this incident was the sharp criticism hurled by Rep. Kwak Sang-eon, the son-in-law of former President Roh Moo-hyun. Rep. Kwak strongly criticized the YouTube channel operated by the foundation for forgetting its original purpose and de facto degenerating into a promotional platform for a specific person. He pointed out through data that while only a small proportion of all video content is directly related to former President Roh, the proportion featuring writer Ryu Si-min is overwhelming. In this regard, the issue of privatization of the foundation's operation was made public by using the analogy, "If a bakery does not sell bread and only promotes the bakery owner, it is no longer a bakery." Rep. Kwak's remarks served as an opportunity to reveal to the world the lack of communication within the foundation and fundamental doubts about its operating methods.

Writer Si-min Yoo chose to physically distance himself from the foundation by responding with an immediate dismissal request and content suspension. He expressed his resignation by stating that his critical activities could cause unnecessary burden and misunderstanding on the foundation. In fact, writer Yoo has claimed to be the ruling party's 'big speaker' by making outspoken remarks on every political issue. In particular, during the recent election phase, he was criticized for inciting conflict between factions within the party through the so-called 'ABC theory', and has maintained a subtle tension with the pro-Myung faction within the Democratic Party due to issues related to establishing a relationship with the Fatherland Innovation Party. It appears that they could not help but be aware of the internal critical view that these political actions undermined the purity of the foundation.

Meanwhile, a stark temperature difference is being felt within the Democratic Party over Writer Yoo's exit. Writer Yoo's supporters, including Rep. Choi Min-hee, lamented his resignation, saying, "Let's protect the foundation together," and strongly defended him, praising him as a brand symbolizing Roh Moo-hyun's spirit. On the other hand, many voices are concerned that writer Yoo's political commentary will accelerate division within the party as the party leadership competition approaches. Some are wary of the possibility that if Yoo leaves the confines of the foundation and engages in full-scale external criticism, he may end up at the center of conflict within the party by supporting or opposing specific forces during the national convention. This proves that the Roh Moo-hyun Foundation is no longer a politically neutral zone, but is becoming a test bed for intra-party dynamics.

Mr. Noh Geon-ho's calm statement further demonstrates the complexity of this situation. Although he revealed that he had no personal interactions with author Yoo, he acknowledged that he was a valuable intellectual in our society. However, at the same time, he has opposed the bereaved family's participation in the foundation since its establishment, and expressed his firm belief that his father's political legacy should be preserved by citizens and comrades who are not blood relatives. In addition, while acknowledging the lack of communication and difference in perspective between the foundation and Rep. Kwak, he drew a line by saying that Rep. Kwak, as an active politician, makes his own decisions. In this way, the concerns of the Roh Moo-hyun Foundation, in which the three axes of family, party, and foundation are intertwined, ultimately boil down to the fundamental question of how to succeed the 'Roh Moo-hyun after Roh Moo-hyun'.