Kwak Sang-do's Son Received 5 Billion Won for Solving a Problem of Cultural Assets? "He Never Did, and He Never Could"

[경향신문]

Independent lawmaker Kwak Sang-do (former People Power Party lawmaker) leaves a plenary session of the parliamentary Education Committee at the National Assembly. National Assembly press photographers

Seongnamui-ddeul (Seongnam Park Co.), the constructor of the Daejang-dong development project in Seongnam, Gyeonggi, hired a professional institute to excavate cultural assets, and a person from the institute argued that the accomplishment, which was the grounds for the 5 billion won retirement pay for lawmaker Kwak Sang-do’s son, was “absolutely impossible.”

On September 26, Kwak Byeong-chae (31), lawmaker Kwak Sang-do’s son, explained the reason he received 5 billion won from Hwacheon Daeyu and said, “The company recognized my contributions during my seven years there.” He also mentioned the fact that he removed the cause of delay in construction after cultural assets were discovered in the development site as his major accomplishment. After public criticism intensified over the fact that he received 5 billion won when leaving a company where he only worked for five years and nine months, he gave an explanation which suggested that the retirement pay included compensation for his contributions to the company.

According to Kwak’s statement, he handled general affairs in the business support team when he first joined Hwacheon Daeyu in 2015. He was then assigned to land compensation in 2016. After construction began in the development area in 2017, he handled follow-up licenses and permits and managed and supervised the site. In the statement Kwak said, “The money (retirement pay) is all in my bank account, and I received it based on the evaluation of my work after I joined Hwacheon Daeyu.” He further said, “The company made the decision after recognizing the contributions I made during the 7 years with the company including my efforts to prevent a crisis and after seeing the need to compensate me for my health, which deteriorated due to the excessive workload.”

The contribution that Kwak particularly emphasized was resolving issues after cultural assets were discovered in the development area. Kwak argued, “Construction was expected to be delayed after the discovery of cultural assets, and I removed the cause of delay by separating the zones where assets were discovered and where they weren’t discovered,” and claimed, “The company began to recognize my abilities after I smoothly handled these difficult issues.” He also said, “Delay in construction means more costs” and added, “I worked extremely hard to remove the cause of delay.”

The Central Institute of Cultural Heritage, which conducted the excavation for cultural assets on site at the time, refuted Kwak’s statement and said, “Kwak never responded to the cultural asset problem, and even if he tried, it would have been impossible.” They said, “It is an outrageous argument.”

An employee of the institute who participated in the excavation in the Daejang area spoke with the Kyunghyang Shinmun over the phone on September 29 and said, “It is true Kwak was the employee who oversaw relevant affairs at the constructor that requested the excavation of cultural assets at the time. I never heard of the name Hwacheon Daeyu. I knew him as an employee of Seongnam Park Co.” He argued, “An employee from the constructor could never be involved in the excavation.”

Another staff at the institute who oversaw the excavation at the time explained, “After examining the surface and conducting a trial pit, if they (cultural assets) are not discovered, construction can begin. That is the general process.” He then argued, “According to Kwak, relics (cultural assets) were discovered at the project site, but he separated that area alone and made it possible to proceed with construction in the other areas. But that is impossible.” He further said, “He seems to have said what he did to argue that the final outcome, which was the construction in areas other than where the excavation was conducted, was a hard thing that he did, since the 5 billion won became a problem.”

The excavation of cultural assets buried in a real estate development site is conducted strictly according to set procedures. The developer receives approval for the excavation from the Cultural Heritage Administration and requests the services of a professional institution. Then cultural asset experts conduct the excavation. To determine whether or not to excavate or conduct a trial pit on the project site, experts go through three stages: they survey a sample area (less than 2% of the area where buried cultural assets are preserved in the development site), conduct a trial pit as a preliminary examination (around 10% of the area where cultural assets are preserved), and finally conduct a thorough excavation (excavating the area where they confirmed cultural assets were buried in the test pit). In each stage, outside experts and scholars gather for an academic advisory meeting and determine the specific area for the excavation, the need for additional excavations as well as preservation measures. There is hardly any room for a representative or employee of the constructor to exercise their influence in these stages.

Besides, Kwak has no experience in cultural assets. Lawmaker Kwak himself described his son’s job at Hwacheon Daeyu and said, “He was only an employee, fresh out of university, who ran errands and learned the trade.” Attorney Kim Yun-wu, who is an expert on real estate development, said, “What the staff from the constructor does in a cultural asset excavation site is inspect the situation so that things go according to plan,” and added, “In reality, it’s really hard for an employee handling development work for the first time to solve a problem of cultural assets alone.”