"Temporary Use of the Public Corruption Investigation Office Gwacheon Building Office"... Preparation Team Reverses Entry Decision in One Day

On April 21, Nam Gi-myeong, Head of the Preparatory Team for the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Agency (HCIA), was moving to attend the 2nd Advisory Committee meeting of the HCIA Preparatory Team held at the Government Seoul Office in Sejong-ro, Seoul. Photo by Kim Hyun-min kimhyun81@

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] The Preparatory Committee for the establishment of the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Office (hereafter the Preparatory Committee), which is pushing for the establishment of the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Office (Gong-su-cheo) expected to officially launch in July, reversed its official stance on the office building for Gong-su-cheo just one day after announcing it.

On the 14th, the Preparatory Committee sent a text message to reporters stating, "Ahead of the enforcement of the Gong-su-cheo Act on July 15, we have explored various options for a building to be used temporarily, and we judged that Building 5 of the Government Complex Gwacheon is the most suitable among the buildings for temporary use."

They added, "Please be informed that matters regarding securing an independent office building for Gong-su-cheo in the future will be decided by Gong-su-cheo itself."

The day before, the Preparatory Committee had issued a clarification related to a Hankyoreh article titled "Independent agency Gong-su-cheo, why move to Gwacheon Complex where the Ministry of Justice is located?" stating, "Considering the overall factors such as building size, facilities security, and distance to the Seoul Central District Court, which has jurisdiction over Gong-su-cheo prosecution cases, we judged that Building 5 of the Government Complex Gwacheon is the most suitable candidate among the potential office buildings for Gong-su-cheo."

They also emphasized, "While promoting the move to Building 5 of the Gwacheon Complex, the Preparatory Committee is also reviewing measures to secure independence and security, such as setting up a security zone to control external access and separate access measures to prevent the exposure of the identity of those under investigation," effectively making the move to Gwacheon Complex a fait accompli.

A Preparatory Committee official said in a media interview, "We are proceeding with moving into Building 5 of the Government Complex Gwacheon and will set up the office there," adding, "We are consulting with the Government Complex Management Headquarters about how many floors and the extent of the space to be used," without mentioning the possibility of 'temporary use.'

This reversal of position by the Preparatory Committee is interpreted as a response to criticisms that ▲ it is inappropriate for the independent agency Gong-su-cheo to move into the Government Complex Gwacheon, which is managed by the executive branch, from the perspective of independence, ▲ negative views about moving into the same place as the Ministry of Justice, and ▲ concerns about investigation security.

With only two months left before the enforcement of the Gong-su-cheo Act, the Preparatory Committee’s ambiguous stance of "for now, we will set up an office in the Gwacheon Complex, but after Gong-su-cheo is established, it may secure an independent office building in another location based on Gong-su-cheo’s decision" is expected to prolong the controversy over the selection of the Gong-su-cheo office site.

Moreover, the Constitutional Court is currently reviewing a constitutional complaint filed by United Future Party lawmakers Kang Seok-jin and Yoo Sang-beom, claiming that the Gong-su-cheo Act violates fundamental rights such as the right to equality.

It is unlikely that the Constitutional Court will reach a conclusion on the main issue of whether specific legal provisions violate fundamental rights before the enforcement date of July 15. However, the provisional injunction request filed by Yoo Sang-beom along with the constitutional complaint could be decided before July.

The Constitutional Court requires for a provisional injunction ▲ the necessity to prevent irreparable harm caused by maintaining the status quo of ‘exercise or non-exercise of public authority’ and ▲ an urgent need to suspend the effect. While these are basic requirements, the Court relatively broadly accepts provisional injunctions unless the main trial is clearly inadmissible or groundless.

When considering whether to grant a provisional injunction, the Constitutional Court places particular importance on weighing the disadvantages that would occur if the injunction is granted but the main claim is later dismissed, against the disadvantages if the injunction is denied but the claim is later accepted.

In this case, the Court will compare the disadvantages of dismissing Yoo’s request to suspend the effect of the Gong-su-cheo Act until the Court’s ruling on its constitutionality, and later finding the Act unconstitutional, with the disadvantages of granting the injunction to suspend the Act’s effect after the enforcement date, and later ruling the Act constitutional.

The Constitutional Court Act explicitly provides for provisional injunctions only in cases of party dissolution trials and jurisdiction disputes among the Court’s powers. However, the Court also allows provisional injunctions in constitutional complaint procedures under Article 68, Paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Court Act.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.