Investigation Reveals Mismanagement in Seoul-Yangpyeong Expressway

Summary of the Investigation After Two Years of Allegations

• Poor management of feasibility study contracts
• Initially claimed as a “clerical error,” but confirmed as an intentional omission
• Seven government officials disciplined: five reprimanded, one warned, and one cautioned

A Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport (MOLIT) internal audit revealed that the feasibility study for the revised endpoint of the Seoul-Yangpyeong Expressway was mismanaged. Additionally, some officials were found to have deliberately omitted documents when submitting reports to the National Assembly. Although this internal audit came nearly two years after allegations of preferential treatment for First Lady Kim Keon-hee’s family, it focused mainly on mismanagement by working-level officials, raising suspicions that the ministry is merely “cutting off the tail” to avoid broader accountability.

MOLIT announced on March 11 that it had recommended disciplinary action for seven officials involved in the Seoul-Yangpyeong Expressway feasibility study: five were officially reprimanded, one received a caution, and another received a warning.

Project Halted Over Allegations of Preferential Treatment

The Seoul-Yangpyeong Expressway project is currently on hold. In May 2023, the endpoint of the expressway was suddenly changed from Yangseo-myeon, Yangpyeong County—where it had been determined in the preliminary feasibility study—to Gangsang-myeon, Yangpyeong County. This sparked suspicions of preferential treatment, as First Lady Kim Keon-hee’s family owns land in the Gangsang-myeon area. The endpoint change was first proposed during a feasibility study initiated after President Yoon Suk-yeol took office.

Audit Findings: Systemic Failures in Contract Management

MOLIT’s internal audit found that its management of the feasibility study contractor was highly inadequate. The Road Policy Division failed to enforce key reporting requirements, including the submission of task execution plans and monthly progress reports. It was only in June 2023—when the National Assembly requested related documents—that MOLIT belatedly obtained the necessary reports from the contractor.

In addition, the audit revealed that MOLIT violated regulations by failing to appoint an official supervisor to oversee the contractor’s performance. Instead, the ministry relied on internal oversight, which was found to be insufficient.

Further, the audit found that the contractor had not completed three key tasks—benefit estimation, economic feasibility analysis, and comprehensive evaluation—valued at 3.35 billion KRW, despite being required to do so in the first phase of the study. However, MOLIT officials still approved a document certifying that 100% of the work had been completed and paid the contractor the full first-phase contract amount of 18.6 billion KRW.

Deliberate Omission of Critical Documents

The audit also confirmed that MOLIT officials intentionally removed four pages from documents submitted to the National Assembly, which contained details about the endpoint change considerations. This omission was initially explained as a “clerical error,” but the audit determined that it was intentional.

In July 2023, as allegations of preferential treatment gained traction, the National Assembly requested additional documents. In response, MOLIT submitted an edited version of the feasibility study report, from which four pages—containing key discussions on the endpoint change—had been completely removed. The same altered document was also uploaded to MOLIT’s website.

When the omission was first exposed, MOLIT insisted it was a “clerical mistake.” However, the audit has now confirmed that the documents were intentionally edited. During the investigation, MOLIT officials admitted that they removed the pages after internal discussions, citing concerns over “typos that could undermine credibility” and the possibility of “additional public complaints.”

As a result, the audit recommended disciplinary action against two officials directly responsible for the document omission.