The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport explained that in the process of promoting the Seoul-Yangpyeong Expressway project, it was not aware of the existence of the land owned by the first lady Kim Kun-hee’s family. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, which refuted both the suspicion of preferential treatment for President Yoon Seok-yeol’s wife’s family and the suspicion of prior knowledge by Minister Won Hee-ryong, said that the possibility of resuming the project was open, but drew a line saying, “It is impossible under the current situation.”
Second Vice Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Baek Won-guk held a briefing at the Sejong Government Complex on the 10th and said, “We have prepared this event so that the public will not be tired of fake news in a situation where there are stories that are not based on facts and suspicions are being raised.” He refuted the major issues related to the Seoul-Yangpyeong Expressway route change, which was suspected of providing preferential treatment to .
First of all, Vice Minister Baek said that he did not know in advance that the land of Mrs. Kim’s family is located near Gangsang-myeon, the end point of the Seoul-Yangpyeong Expressway alternative route.
He argued, “Who would have known that there was land (owned by Mrs. Kim’s family) in the Gangsang-myeon area?” At the same time, he emphasized, “It will be identified later when the (owner) list is pulled out at the land compensation stage, and in the current situation, it is impossible to ascertain the facts.”
It is explained that at the current stage, when the Seoul-Yangpyeong highway route has not been finalized, it is unnecessary to identify the specific land owner, and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport also did not have information about this.
He also denied the allegation that Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Won Hee-ryong knew in advance that Mrs. Kim’s family had land in the Gangsang-myeon area.
The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport nailed the first time Minister Won recognized this fact as ‘the 29th of last month’. At the time when related suspicions were raised by civic groups, Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Doo-gwan, a member of the National Assembly’s Land, Infrastructure and Transport Committee, sent an inquiry, and the working-level department identified it and learned about it when the minister’s report was made.
In the opposition, during the parliamentary audit last year, circumstances were revealed that Minister Won knew of the existence of the land of the Kim family in the Kang Sang-myeon area, and accordingly, suspicions were raised that the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs intervened in the route change according to Minister Won’s instructions.
Regarding this, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport explained, “Last year’s National Audit Inquiry pointed out whether the transformation of the shape of various lands in Yangpyeong was illegal. “There is no reason for the minister to receive such information in the middle of the strategic environmental impact assessment, which reviews various route plans,” he said.
Regarding Minister Won’s sudden declaration of complete cancellation of the project on the 6th, Vice Minister Baek said, “I stopped it because I saw that it had reached an impossible state where it was difficult to promote the project normally.” I think it is possible, but it is difficult in the current situation.”
He continued, “I hope the stop period can be minimized,” but “specifically (business resumption time) requires a comprehensive judgment. At present, it is difficult to specify the timing.”
Regarding the question of whether the policy토토사이트 of ‘completely blanking out’ went through an internal review of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, he said, “(Minister Won’s) order for a full review was on June 29.” If you go to . The Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs also explained
that the reason for reviewing the route change from Yangseo-myeon, Yangpyeong-gun to Gangsang-myeon was the result of preparing a reasonable alternative that had high traffic volume, low environmental damage and was able to install Gangha IC .
Along with this, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs said that it is possible that a route different from the one that passed the preliminary feasibility study was covered in the feasibility study process, and that it is not an unusual case as the opposition party claims.
According to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, a total of 14 cases where the start and end points of highway projects have changed in the past 20 years. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport explains that if the scope is narrowed down to projects that have been promoted since 2010, four out of eight projects have undergone changes after preliminary testing.
In addition, it refuted that the increase in project cost due to the route change was 14 billion won, not 100 billion won. After preliminary testing, there was an increase in project cost of about 82 billion won at the starting point, reflecting the contents of discussions with related organizations, such as an increase in Gamilbogeumjari tunnel extension in Hanam-si and a change in the location of Sangsangchang IC , but this is not related to the change in the end point.
Vice Minister Baek emphasized, “The project cost increases by only 0.8% compared to the preliminary estimate, but the traffic volume increases by 40%, so the alternative route (terminal point in Gangsang-myeon) is the best overall.”
Regarding whether to reflect public opinion in future business plans, Vice Minister Baek spoke cautiously, saying, “There are issues where pros and cons are divided, but it doesn’t seem like a good precedent for the government to step out and find out public opinion every time.”