Sinan County Requests Full-Scale Investigation into Three Major Projects of Previous Administration

Public Asset Exchange, Private Consignment of Salt Farm Worker Accommodations, and Donated Trees Projects Under Investigation
Kim Taeseong: "A Break from Abnormal Administration... The Starting Point for a Clean Sinan"

The Sinan County government of Jeonnam Gwangju Metropolitan City has decided to request a full-scale investigation by law enforcement agencies into three major projects that were promoted during the tenure of former County Governor Park Woolyang under the 7th and 8th popularly elected administrations.

This marks the first large-scale investigative action targeting key projects of the previous county administration since the inauguration of Sinan County Governor Kim Taeseong. It is expected that the investigation will cover the county’s budget execution, management of public assets, and the overall structure of private consignment projects.

ChatGPT Generated Image.

The county announced that it has requested investigations into three projects suspected of illegal or improper administration: the exchange of public assets, the construction of safe accommodations for salt farm workers, and the donated trees project.

The county believes that these projects lost procedural legitimacy during their execution, may have involved preferential treatment for specific individuals, misuse of budget funds, abuse of the private consignment system, and posed potential risks of financial loss to the county.

This referral for investigation goes beyond a simple internal administrative audit and signals the county’s intention to leave the determination of potential illegality in these core projects to the judicial authorities.

Previously, the Sinan County 9th Administration Transition Support Task Force also disclosed that their review of key issues from the 7th and 8th administrations uncovered problems in some large-scale projects and in the management of public assets.

At the time, the task force explained that it would refer issues regarding legal and contractual procedures in the process of tree donation and planting, concerns over conflicts of interest and procedural violations in public asset management, and improper execution of consignment funds in private consignment projects to the audit department.

The first subject of the investigation request is the exchange of public assets promoted under the pretext of securing land for the Jido Climate Response Urban Forest Project. According to the county, in November 2023, Sinan County announced a call for exchange candidates, registered a single applicant in January 2024, and following county council approval in March 2025, exchanged 107 privately owned plots totaling 123,100 square meters in Jido-eup for one county-owned plot of 218,415 square meters in Shini-myeon on June 4, 2025.

The issue is that the project proceeded on the assumption that the land exchange would be finalized. The county believes that, even before obtaining consent for land use, trees were preemptively planted, effectively making the exchange with a specific individual a foregone conclusion. Although the process was presented as a public call, in reality, the structure only accommodated a single applicant, and the order in which the project was carried out did not align with standard procedures for acquisition and disposition of public assets.

In particular, the county analyzed that, had the county-owned land in Shini-myeon been used as a solar power site instead of being exchanged, it could have generated annual rental income of about 370 million won, with accumulated net profit over 20 years reaching approximately 5 billion won. If this analysis is accurate, this exchange could raise suspicions of breach of duty, as it may not simply be a matter of administrative judgment but rather a case in which the county forwent financial benefit in favor of a structure advantageous to a specific individual.

The second subject is the project to construct safe accommodations for salt farm workers. This project aims to improve the poor living conditions of salt farm workers by building accommodations with 15 rooms, intended for two people each, in the Janggam-ri area of Aphae-eup. Previously, similar projects in Dochomyeon Zone 1 and Hawimyeon Zone 2 were reportedly conducted through public bidding by the county.

However, this third zone project was carried out by consigning construction to a private company, referred to as Company A.

According to the county, of the total project budget of 4 billion won, 2.73 billion won has already been paid out. The payment schedule is as follows: 500 million won in May 2024, 330 million won in November 2024, 1 billion won in January 2025, and 900 million won in June 2025.

The main point of contention is that about 70% of the total project budget has already been paid out while the detailed design service is still in progress. In public facility construction projects, the detailed design stage is critical as it finalizes the scope, construction costs, permits, construction method, and subsequent contract procedures. If the design is not yet complete, it is difficult to confirm construction costs and the execution plan for each stage. Nevertheless, if billions of won have already been transferred to a private contractor, it is difficult to avoid criticism that the order and controls for budget execution have effectively collapsed.

The county considers that, as this project involves the construction of public facilities, it is difficult to view it as a private consignment task. Under the Local Autonomy Act, local government heads may entrust certain tasks—which are not directly related to residents’ rights and obligations and are defined by ordinance or rule, such as investigation, inspection, certification, and management—to corporations, organizations, or individuals. Therefore, whether public accommodation construction itself constitutes a private consignment task under this provision, or whether it was a circumvention of the public bidding and local contract procedures, is expected to be a key issue in the investigation.

Additionally, the legal assessment may differ depending on whether the 2.73 billion won paid is an advance payment under the construction contract or a private consignment project fund under the consignment agreement. However, in either case, if most of the project funds were paid while design was still underway, it is necessary to verify the grounds for payment, payment conditions, settlement obligations, whether a payment guarantee was submitted, management of a dedicated project account, and clauses for returning the balance. If the so-called "private consignment project fund" was in reality an advance payment of construction costs, this could constitute a serious issue of bypassing budget controls and contract procedures.

The third subject of the investigation is the donated trees project. Since 2020, the county has received donations of approximately 1,678,905 trees of around 60 different species, including hackberry trees, under the pretext of creating a premium hackberry tree-lined road, with a total of about 42.9 billion won spent on the project.

The county believes that, while the project was presented as a donation, the county actually bore all incidental expenses such as excavation and transportation, resulting in a serious financial burden. Normally, tree planting projects require a public bidding process in accordance with the Local Contract Act, based on a design document, to select contractors. However, the county explained that this project was carried out directly by the county itself, bypassing the proper contract procedures.

In particular, the method for calculating the donation fee has emerged as a key issue in this case. The county believes that, without objective criteria, the appraised value of the trees was excessively set at about 117.3 billion won, and the final payment, calculated at 20% of this amount as stipulated by ordinance, was also inflated to around 23.4 billion won. Furthermore, it was confirmed that about 77% of the total amount executed was concentrated among three specific individuals.

Although the project was outwardly labeled as a "donation," in substance, a large amount of county funds was invested. The actual number and condition of the trees, the basis for the appraised value, the calculation of excavation, transportation, and planting costs, the necessity for direct handling by the county, and the reason for the concentration of expenses to specific individuals are all subjects that must be investigated. If the donation was used as a pretext to avoid public bidding or repeatedly deliver benefits to certain individuals, this could go beyond mere accounting negligence and raise suspicions of breach of duty in the performance of official duties.

The county plans to conduct a large-scale audit by the audit department, separately from the investigation request, in order to root out waste and ensure transparency in administration. The audit will not be limited to these three projects but may be expanded to cover all major large-scale projects from the 7th and 8th administrations.

Kim Taeseong, Governor of Sinan County, stated, "Without breaking with past abnormal administrative practices, we cannot open a new future for Sinan," adding, "This investigation request is a promise to our residents to establish a fair and reasonable administration, based on fairness and common sense, and marks the starting point for a clean Sinan."

This move by Sinan County represents the first step in directly questioning the legality and accountability of the major projects carried out by the previous administration. Depending on the results of the investigation, the case could be settled as a simple administrative error, but if the suspicions raised by the county are substantiated, it could develop into a major corruption case covering the management of public assets, private consignment projects, and overall budget execution.

Above all, the key point of interest in this investigation will be whether budget funds that should have been used for residents’ welfare and to address local issues were instead concentrated on specific projects or individuals, and whether administrative authority was privately leveraged in the process.

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