[News Today] Yoon gov’t sued over construction cost

[LEAD]
It was revealed that misconduct and budget losses occurred during the Yongsan relocation under the Yoon Suk Yeol administration. Now, one contractor is suing the government, claiming it did more work without a contract, and was never paid.

[REPORT]
Following the election win, the former Yoon Suk Yeol administration laid out plans to relocate the presidential office to Seoul's Yongsan area.

Yoon Suk Yeol / Then President-elect (March 2022)
Being 20 years old, renovation work is necessary. I plan to request preliminary funds of KRW 49.6 bn.

With two months left to inauguration, some construction work was carried out through private contracts.

One interior design company also took part in five constructions whose orders were placed by the Presidential Security Service.

KBS has confirmed that this company had sued the state over 500 million won, or over 370-thousand dollars, in unpaid construction costs.

In addition to contracted work, a PSS official requested construction at 21 more locations, but the firm said it wasn't paid for them.

This includes work done for the spot where Yoon used to take questions from reporters on his way to work as well as conference rooms on basement levels 1 to 3 and the national security office.

It also includes renovation work for apartment units used as residence for senior PSS officials at the time including former chief Kim Yong-hyun as well as Kim Jong-cheol and Kim Seong-hoon.

These jobs took place without a contract and according to the company, it was notified by a PSS official that due to tight budget, payments will be made the following year.

However this official left the PSS after being investigated over irregularities and the company eventually failed to get paid.

The PSS has not made the payment to this day.

As KBS began to look into the matter, the PSS expressed regret, saying it will take follow-up steps in line with the outcome of the trial.

Prosecutors, responding to the lawsuit, said the contract claimed by the firm is invalid, as it did not meet the requirements and procedures under the State Contract Act.