Supreme Court Justice Jo Jae-yeon Discloses Daughter's Resident Registration Abstract and Apartment Contract... "Not the 'That Person' of Daejang-dong"

Justice Jo Jae-yeon is making a statement at a press conference held at the Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the afternoon of the 23rd.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] On the 28th, Supreme Court Justice Cho Jae-yeon, who recently denied the suspicion of being 'that person' mentioned in the Daejang-dong recording during a press conference, disclosed materials related to the residences of himself, his spouse, and three daughters to the media.

On this day, Justice Cho released a total of 53 pages of documents through the Court Administration Office, including resident registration certificates and abstracts, certified copies of real estate registers, and the second daughter's apartment contract. The disclosed materials also included family relationship certificates, management fee payment confirmations, receipts, and a certificate of employment for his son-in-law.

The suspicion regarding Justice Cho arose after it was reported in the media that Kim Man-bae, the major shareholder of Hwacheon Daeyu, was mentioned in a recording submitted to the prosecution by accountant Jung Young-hak as 'that person' being a sitting Supreme Court justice, and that the daughter of 'that person' was living in a villa owned by Kim.

In particular, from the early stages of the Daejang-dong scandal investigation, Lee Jae-myung, the Democratic Party presidential candidate, who had been suspected as 'that person'?the actual owner of Cheonhwa-dongin No. 1?mentioned Justice Cho by name during a TV debate on the 21st, saying, "'That person' is being confirmed as Justice Cho Jae-yeon," which further fueled the suspicions.

In response, on the 23rd, Justice Cho held a press conference?the first among sitting Supreme Court justices?to declare that all allegations were groundless and expressed his intention to disclose necessary materials.

At that time, Justice Cho stated, "One daughter married in 2016 and moved out, continuing to live in Seoul; another daughter married last year and moved out to live in Jukjeon; and the youngest daughter lives with me."

Justice Cho’s submission of resident registration abstracts verifying the past residences of each family member appears to support these facts. Additionally, submitting the son-in-law’s certificate of employment is interpreted as proof that the recording’s claim that the justice’s daughter married a diplomat is unrelated to him.

According to the resident registration abstracts disclosed that day, Justice Cho moved to Seoul in 1970 and had addresses in Seodaemun-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Gangseo-gu, and Guro-gu until 1982. From 1982 to 1986, while working at the Seoul Civil District Court and Seoul Criminal District Court, he resided in Gwacheon-si and Siheung-gun in Gyeonggi Province.

After working at the Chuncheon District Court Gangneung Branch, he lived for about a year in Gangneung, Gangwon Province, then moved to Anyang-si, Gyeonggi Province, and Songpa-gu, Seoul. The current registered address in Seocho-gu, Seoul, where he, his wife, and third daughter reside, was moved into in 1995.

The addresses of the two married daughters do not include Suwon-si or Pangyo in Seongnam-si?locations mentioned by Kim in the recording as the apartment address he provided or as the site of the alleged 'luxury townhouse.'

The eldest daughter, Cho Mo, registered her move to Jukjeon-dong, Yongin, Gyeonggi Province, in October 2020. According to the resident registration abstracts, she lived with Justice Cho and his wife before moving out in 2020.

The second daughter also lived with her parents but moved to Jamwon-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul, in November 2016; then to Seocho-dong in November 2018; and finally registered her residence in Hangangro-dong, Yongsan-gu, in May 2021.

Earlier, during the investigation, the prosecution reviewed the problematic parts of Jung Young-hak’s recording but judged there was no substance to the claims and did not proceed with further investigation.

Meanwhile, after all the presiding judges were changed due to personnel reshuffles and the trial procedures were renewed, the trial?which had been delayed due to reasons such as playing previously recorded witness interrogation audio at the request of the defense? is scheduled to resume on the 7th of next month.

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