Dispute Over Submission of Attorney Appointment Records for Governor Lee Jae-myung at the Constitutional Court Audit by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee

Allegations of Attorney Fee Payment by Governor Lee: "A Matter of Public Interest" VS "A Personal Issue"
Bar Association States Data Can Be Provided After Committee Approval

2021 National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee's Supreme Court Audit. [Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] At the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee's audit of the Constitutional Court on the 12th, a dispute arose between ruling and opposition party lawmakers over the submission of documents related to the attorney appointment details in the case of Gyeonggi Province Governor Lee Jae-myung's violation of the Public Official Election Act.

Before the formal Q&A session began, Yoon Han-hong, the senior member of the People Power Party, said, "The audit is at its midpoint, and I intend to request a resolution from the chairman regarding the documents."

Yoon stated, "The suspicion of attorney Lee Tae-hyung, who defended Governor Lee Jae-myung in the election law violation case, having his legal fees paid by a third party has become a major public concern," adding, "The pro-Moon Jae-in group, Awake Citizens Solidarity Party, filed a complaint with the prosecution claiming '3 billion KRW in cash and 2 billion KRW in stocks were received, and later even a position as an outside director was obtained.'"

He continued, "There are upcoming audits for the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, and we have been continuously requesting the Seoul Bar Association and the Korean Bar Association to submit related documents," adding, "They say they will provide the documents if the Legislation and Judiciary Committee passes a resolution."

Yoon emphasized, "This is directly related to the Daejang-dong corruption scandal, which has angered the public as a case of corruption," and "Attorney Lee was a key lawyer who defended Governor Lee in the Supreme Court election law case where he was acquitted."

He added, "During the Supreme Court audit, there were questions about judicial trading, where a guilty verdict was turned into an acquittal. The allegations of receiving 3 billion KRW in cash, 2 billion KRW in stocks, and an outside director position have already been revealed through the media, yet the Bar Association refuses to provide the documents," and said, "There is a CIO audit today, a district prosecutor's office audit on Thursday (14th), and a Supreme Prosecutors' Office audit on Monday (18th). Shouldn't we receive the documents before then?"

He proposed, "I ask the chairman to pass a resolution on this matter and also request the ruling party's senior member," and urged, "Please agree on this issue that has become a matter of public interest and that the people want to know about."

In response, Park Kwang-on, a member of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee from the Democratic Party, said, "Please consult with senior member Park Joo-min."

Park added, "Traditionally and according to regulations, a committee resolution requires prior consultation between senior members."

At this point, Kim Nam-guk, a Democratic Party lawmaker active in Lee Jae-myung's campaign, interjected.

Kim said, "I believe that the purpose of the audit is for the National Assembly to point out and question various institutional and policy errors of the executive branch," and emphasized, "Addressing an individual's wrongdoing should be resolved through complaints and accusations to investigative agencies, not through the authority of the National Assembly."

He continued, "The details of attorney appointments and third-party payment of legal fees are personal matters, and requesting such documents from the National Assembly is essentially demanding information beyond its authority, so I want to say it is inappropriate."

Kim expressed dissatisfaction, saying, "Secondly, the content of the allegations and suspicions is utterly groundless," and "When looking at articles about the facts, there should be at least minimal evidence related to the connected content, but the basis for the complaint is just a rumor sheet," adding, "The complaint was filed based on rumors and hearsay, so is it appropriate to raise suspicions based on this?"

He said, "Even in the articles mentioned by Representative Yoon, there is no content indicating that Company S paid the fees," and "There is nothing that can be called a suspicion. I think it is very inappropriate to discuss this in the audit session."

He reiterated, "Therefore, I want to say this is neither within the authority of the National Assembly to request nor a matter to be handled during the audit."

After Kim finished speaking, Yoon responded with opposition, and as a debate ensued between the two, Chairman Park intervened, saying, "Please obtain the floor before speaking."

Then, Yoo Sang-beom, a People Power Party lawmaker who obtained the floor, said, "Representative Kim said it was inappropriate to request personal documents, but this matter has already been raised and a complaint filed by a civic group regarding the suspicion of third-party payment related to attorney appointments," emphasizing this point.

He added, "Several lawyers affiliated with Attorney Lee's firm are registered as outside directors of subsidiaries of Company S between 2000 and 2001," and said, "In this case, various suspicions related to the appointment can be sufficiently raised, and this matter is already under investigation following a complaint."

He argued, "This is not about Governor Lee's personal attorney appointment but concerns a violation of the Political Funds Act regarding third-party payment of legal fees," countering Representative Kim's claim.

Yoo said, "The complaint has been filed, and the National Assembly, on behalf of the people, is requesting the attorney appointment details to resolve suspicions. It is misleading to portray this as a request for individual matters," and added, "As the chairman said, this should be done through consultation between senior members of both parties, but given the significant public suspicion, the ruling party should actively cooperate so that the Bar Association can at least submit the attorney appointment details related to Governor Lee's trial."

He questioned Kim, "There is no problem with this, and the attorney fees were all paid properly, right?" and pointed out, "Isn't there no reason to refuse submission?"

He emphasized, "The National Assembly has the duty to verify by receiving the attorney appointment details, and it is appropriate to actively cooperate and obtain them."

Song Ki-heon, a Democratic Party lawmaker, countered again, saying, "I think there is confusion between a state audit and a state investigation," and pointed out, "According to the Act on State Audit and Inspection, in the case of a state investigation, requests for documents can be made to related persons or institutions, and during a state audit, requests for submission of materials necessary for the audit can be made and resolved."

He said, "I understand that opposition lawmakers are curious and want to receive documents, but this is not appropriate for the current audit situation," and urged, "Please judge that it is not a situation where document submission can be resolved or requested."

As the dispute between ruling and opposition parties continued, Chairman Park concluded the situation by saying, "If this issue continues to be disputed, it will be difficult to conduct a thorough audit of the Constitutional Court, so let's leave it to consultation between senior members."

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