"Why Send a Seoul Case to Gyeonggi?" Suspect Sues Over Transfer... Court: "Lawful"

Case transferred at Gyeonggi Northern Provincial Police Agency's request to combine investigations
Court: "Consultation was established when no objection was raised to the transfer request"

A suspect who sued after objecting to police transferring a case under investigation to a police agency in another region lost the case.

According to legal sources on October 25, the Seoul Administrative Court's Fourth Administrative Division, presided over by Judge Kim Young-min, ruled against A in a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the transfer disposition against the chief of B Police Station. The court said, "The defendant's agreement to the transfer request without raising any particular objection can itself be regarded as consultation," adding, "The transfer in this case was not unlawful."

Seoul Administrative Court. The Asia Business Daily DB

B Police Station had earlier received a complaint against A and begun an investigation, but suspended it in 2024 because A's whereabouts were unknown. Later, when the Gyeonggi Northern Provincial Police Agency requested that the case be transferred so it could investigate it together with another case involving A, B Police Station resumed the investigation in June 2025 and transferred the case. A challenged the decision by filing an administrative appeal, but after it was dismissed, filed a lawsuit.

At trial, A argued, "It was unlawful for the head of the Gyeonggi Northern Provincial Police Agency to direct the investigation, even though the agency is not a superior authority to B Police Station." A also argued that there was no evidence of consultation between the police agencies and objected to documents being missing during the transfer. A further claimed that there was no basis for assigning a new case number. A also argued that the transfer was arbitrary, as it took place immediately after A challenged the decision to suspend the investigation.

The court found that the head of the Gyeonggi Northern Provincial Police Agency had not directed the investigation in the capacity of a superior authority. It said the agency had requested the transfer so it could investigate the case together with another case, and that consultation between the police agencies had taken place because B Police Station had agreed without raising any particular objection. The court stated, "The fact that there are no separate records of consultation does not, by itself, mean that the disposition in this case was unlawful."

The court also rejected the claim that transfer documents were missing. It found that all related documents and evidence appeared to have been sent, and that any items that had been omitted could be sent later. The court determined that the new case number had been assigned when the investigation into the suspended case resumed. Regarding the transfer after A raised an objection, the court said, "It cannot be concluded that the disposition was made arbitrarily to infringe the plaintiff's right to object or right to a defense, or to prevent the superior authority from exercising its supervisory responsibility."

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