Investigation Stalls as Hysan and Subcontractors Blame Each Other in 'Gwangju Collapse Accident'

Primary Contractor Hyundai Steel Ignores Collapse Cause 'Dongbari Removal'

Police Review Whether Unauthorized Installation of Temporary Supports Constitutes 'Design Change'

[Asia Economy Honam Reporting Headquarters Reporter Park Jin-hyung] The police investigating the collapse accident at Hwajeong I-Park in Seo-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City, are struggling to prove the negligence of the construction company Hyundai Development Company.

This is due to conflicting statements between Hyundai Development and subcontractors regarding the 'dongbari removal,' which is pointed out as one of the causes of the building collapse.

The investigation headquarters for the new apartment collapse accident (Gwangju Police Agency) has investigated 50 related persons so far, of whom 11 have been criminally charged and 14 have been banned from leaving the country.

The charged include 6 Hyundai Development officials, 2 subcontractor officials, and 3 supervisors, with major charges including professional negligence causing death or injury, violations of the Building Act and the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

The problem is that Hyundai Development, receiving legal advice from a major law firm, continues to shift most of the responsibility onto subcontractors, making it difficult to examine whether negligence occurred.

The key suspect, the Hyundai Development site manager, denies involvement, stating, "I have only been assigned as site manager for about two weeks according to internal company personnel, so I am not well aware of the situation."

Moreover, with suspects sharing statements under legal counsel, there is little expectation of a 'bombshell declaration,' and the investigation has inevitably been delayed after a request for attendance was postponed once during the Lunar New Year holiday period.

According to the National Construction Standards Center's standard specifications, when pouring concrete for buildings over 30 floors or 120 meters in height, it is regulated that dongbari (support props) must be installed on the three floors below as support, but this regulation was ignored on site.

Hyundai Development claims, "The subcontractor acted arbitrarily," while the subcontractor responsible for the reinforced concrete work holds the opposite position.

It is industry practice to consult with headquarters (Hyundai Development) on the color of the building's exterior materials one by one. Therefore, the site manager's statement that he "did not know the dongbari was removed" is considered to have low credibility.

Several subcontractors also state that "this work cannot be done without the primary contractor's instructions."

However, there is still no 'smoking gun' to support this.

The work log, which includes the site manager's review signature for reference, records the dismantling of Alform (aluminum formwork materials), but there is a difference in interpretation. It remains unclear whether the dongbari is included in the Alform materials.

An official from the investigation headquarters explained, "We are examining from multiple angles whose claim is true." Securing objective evidence is key.

They have inquired with the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport whether the construction method using 'deck plates,' which can minimize the installation of support props (a cantilever method), is simply a 'construction method change' or constitutes a 'design change.'

Supervisors who judged it as a design change requested related materials, but the investigation is to determine whether Hyundai Development ignored this request.

In particular, they are verifying whether the unauthorized installation of reverse beams (inverted 'T'-shaped retaining walls) that serve as supports weighing 40 to 50 tons while using the deck method constitutes a design change.

It is estimated that seven reverse beams installed on the PIT (equipment space) floors below the 39th floor failed to withstand the slab load and broke, causing impact, which is expected to be a crucial key in determining future liability.

The subcontractor first proposed the installation of reverse beams, and Hyundai Development judged that structural review was unnecessary and did not go through any administrative procedures.

They are also examining the core investigation point of 'poor concrete curing.' A standard sample (cylindrical specimen) should show 24 megapascals per cubic meter after 28 days to be considered normal.

The Korea Conformity Laboratories is measuring strength and back-calculating to the accident date to verify compliance with standards.

Hyundai Development has explained that five floors from the 35th floor to the PIT floor underwent sufficient curing periods of 12 to 18 days.

They have also closely examined 370 complaints filed with the local district office, mostly concerning road damage and noise, but have not found any major issues so far. Some complaints require detailed verification.

Other documents related to permits and approvals are under analysis, and witness investigations targeting related public officials have not yet been conducted.

The accident occurred around 3:46 p.m. on the 11th when the exterior walls from the 23rd to 38th floors of Building 201 collapsed at the apartment construction site.

Two workers were recovered deceased, two others have been located but rescue operations are slow, and the remaining two have not yet been found. They are presumed to have been responsible for window and fire-fighting equipment installation on floors 28 to 34 of the collapsed building.

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