Kim Seung-won, a nominee for Minister of Justice, was confirmed on the 16th to have handled a case under a judicial panel led by Judge Jeong, who later dismissed a bench warrant for Kang, the founder of biotech firm Genencell, during Kim’s tenure as a lawyer. Kim faces allegations of soliciting approval for Genencell’s clinical plan for a COVID-19 treatment from the head of the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. During his confirmation hearing on the 15th, Kim stated, “I have never taken on cases under Judge Jeong’s judicial panel since opening my law practice,” but circumstances contradicting this claim have emerged.
Kim represented the plaintiff in the second trial of a 2013 lawsuit filed by a service company against a housing redevelopment association, seeking payment of service fees and delayed damages. In 2012, Suwon District Court ruled in favor of the defendant in the first trial. The case was reassigned to the 21st Civil Division of Seoul High Court in 2013 after the plaintiff’s appeal. Judge Jeong was listed as a presiding judge in the ruling document for that case, though the panel ultimately rejected the appeal.
Judge Jeong, a senior from Seoul National University’s law school and a former colleague of Kim at Jeonju District Court in 2002, dismissed a bench warrant requested by prosecutors in 2023 against Kang, Genencell’s founder, on charges including breach of trust and obstruction of business. Prior to this, in February 2022, Kim and a broker, Yang, were reported to have shared a meal with Judge Jeong, sparking controversy. After the warrant’s dismissal, it was revealed that Judge Jeong’s son worked as a legislative assistant in Kim’s office.
During the confirmation hearing on the 15th, Kim reiterated, “I have never taken on cases under Judge Jeong’s judicial panel since opening my law practice.” On the 11th, he stated, “Judge Jeong is a former colleague from my time in the judiciary, and we have maintained contact through legal circles,” but denied discussing specific cases. Regarding suspicions that the warrant dismissal was a quid pro quo for his son’s employment, Kim asserted, “There is no causal relationship, and claims of reciprocity are unfounded.”
Kim’s camp explained on the same day, “Judge Jeong was not the presiding judge in the case, so it was not memorable,” and acknowledged, “There was an error in relying solely on memory during the hearing.”
jasdooit 
Leave a comment