Dispute Over Kim Jung-sook's Clothing Costs, Legal Battle Over Presidential Records Act

Citizen Group Files Constitutional Complaint on Article 11, Clause 1
Formal Review Decision Expected as Early as Next Week
Special Activity Fund Information Disclosure Also Faces Second Trial
People Power Party Proposes Related Law Amendment
Legal Community: "Public Awareness of Rights Increasing"
Judiciary Expected to Take Passive Stance

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] Legal disputes surrounding presidential records at the end of the Moon Jae-in administration are intensifying. Triggered by a controversy over the source of First Lady Kim Jung-sook's clothing expenses, the debate has expanded to how far the scope of non-disclosure can be recognized for all presidential records, including the Blue House's special activity funds.

The main focus is on the Constitutional Court. The court is currently reviewing whether to formally adjudicate a constitutional complaint filed by the civic group Korea Taxpayers Association, which claims that Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional. The review is progressing quickly, and a decision on whether to proceed with a formal trial could be made as early as next week. The group has also filed a provisional injunction requesting that the records not be transferred to the archives until the constitutional complaint is resolved. In 2018, this group requested disclosure of information regarding the Blue House's special activity funds and First Lady Kim’s protocol expenses. When the Blue House decided to keep the information confidential, the group filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn that decision. The first trial ruled to "disclose the details," and the Blue House appealed in March; the second trial is pending.

The bereaved families of a Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries official who died from gunfire by North Korean soldiers in the West Sea also raised concerns that records detailing the circumstances of the death might be classified as non-disclosable, and submitted a national petition at the end of last month. The families filed an information disclosure lawsuit against the Blue House’s National Security Office and partially won in November last year. Kim Ki-yoon, the families’ lawyer, urged the Blue House to withdraw its appeal and petitioned not to designate the records related to the deceased official as presidential records. Hong Seok-jun, a member of the People Power Party, also introduced a bill to amend the Presidential Records Management Act.

A lawyer in Seocho-dong analyzed, "In the past, there was a strong demand for stable post-management and analysis of presidential records, but recently, there seems to be a growing awareness that transparency of records should be ensured even before the president leaves office," adding, "Distrust toward the outgoing government also appears to have had a significant impact."

In the legal community, it is believed that the controversy was further fueled because the Blue House’s explanation?that First Lady Kim purchased 178 pieces of clothing with her own money?failed to satisfy public expectations regarding the appropriateness of the clothing expenses. A legal insider said, "The public’s sense of entitlement to transparently verify how their hard-earned tax money is spent has increased."

[Image source=Yonhap News]

According to Article 16 of the Presidential Records Act, if presidential records are classified as non-disclosable, they may remain sealed for 30 years. They can also be excluded from reclassification every two years after review by a professional committee. In other words, they are sealed for 30 years. The decision on disclosure is made by the head of the institution that produced the presidential records, but this provision has been criticized for being quite ambiguous. While the Blue House records are recognized for their special nature and discretion is granted to the producing institution, the scope of this discretion is considered too broad.

Judicial bodies have acknowledged the special nature of presidential records and have generally taken a cautious stance on disclosure. In January 2020, the Constitutional Court dismissed a case challenging the designation of materials related to the Sewol ferry disaster as presidential records and their transfer to the records management institution, ruling that it was not subject to unconstitutionality review. It is widely expected that a similar outcome will be reached regarding the Blue House’s special activity funds and First Lady Kim’s clothing expenses. A legal expert said, "Legally, presidential records are supposed to be disclosed in principle, and there is a prevailing view that documents related to clothing expenses are difficult to consider as presidential records," but added, "This time, the Constitutional Court might issue a different ruling."

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