● Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport service company executive testimony, “Visit Yangpyeong-gun to discuss routes before requesting cooperation from related organizations in July 2022” ● “Out of the 3 routes Yangpyeong-gun proposed to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, 2 courses including the original plan were initially impossible” ‘Yangseo-myeon→Gangsang-myeon’ almost identical to the end point change ● I saw the answer sheet in advance and submitted the correct answer… The Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs and Yangpyeong-gun claim that “we have never made it in advance” Newstapa interviewed Mr. A, an executive of the company who oversaw the feasibility study of the ‘Seoul-Yangpyeong Expressway’, where the controversy over ‘Kim Kun-hee’s preferential
treatment
‘
was
raised
. Mr. A testified, “Last year in July, before the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport) requested cooperation with related organizations such as Yangpyeong-gun, Yangpyeong-gun and other related organizations went to Yangpyeong-gun to discuss the route.”
It is doubtful whether the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and Yangpyeong-gun colluded in advance to change the ‘Yangseo-myeon end point plan’, which completed a preliminary feasibility study (pretest), to the problematic ‘Gangsang-myeon end point plan’.
There are two major points at the heart of the Seoul-Yangpyeong expressway suspicion of preferential treatment. first, Whether the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport) ordered the Seoul-Yangpyeong Expressway project service company to change the end point of the route. Second, whether or not Yangpyeong-gun received a notice from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport or a service company in advance that the route will be changed.
On July 18, 2022, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport sent an
official letter to 10 institutions, including Yangpyeong-gun and Hanam-si. The title of the official document is ‘Request for Consultation with Agencies Related to Feasibility Assessment (Investigation) of Seoul-Yangpyeong Expressway’. It was the first consultation with the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport related to the Seoul-Yangpyeong Expressway project.
As a result of Newstapa’s coverage, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport sent an official from the service company to Yangpyeong-gun before sending this official letter. It was to coordinate something with Yangpyeong-gun in advance. Mr. A, who oversaw the feasibility study of the Seoul-Yangpyeong Expressway as an executive of a service company of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, said, “I visited Yangpyeong-gun with an employee of the Expressway Corporation and discussed the highway route.”
The problem is then Yangpyeong-gun sent a reply to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport within eight days of receiving the official letter. It contained three highway routes (plans 1 to 3) that Yangpyeong-gun wanted. The first plan was the ‘Yangseo-myeon end plan’, which was the first plan that had gone through preliminary testing, the second plan was almost similar to the ‘Gangsang-myeon end point plan’, which was decided by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and the third plan was the ‘third end point plan’ that passed through the middle of the two plans. All three plans were based on the premise that an access road ( IC ) would be installed within Yangpyeong-gun. Mr. A said, “At the time, the position of Yangpyeong-gun was to make only ICs no matter what the route would be.”
However, Mr. A confessed that “Yangpyeong-gun’s proposals 1 and 3 were impossible to realize from the beginning.”He said that it was a problem because the installation location was ‘the land of Gwangju City’. It is Yangpyeong-gun’s position that “no matter what the route is , there must be an IC in Yangpyeong -gun”, but somehow, in Yangpyeong-gun’s바카라 plan 1, the location of the IC was to be installed in Gwangju City, not Yangpyeong-gun. Mr. A said, “(Yangpyeong-gun) drew roughly, so now ( IC ) is done in Gwangju City.” It is said that Gwangju City did not want to install IC separately.
Mr. A said, “‘Yangpyeong-gun 3 plan’ is a line that makes no sense at all.” Mr. A said.Mr. A said, “Yangpyeong-gun (plan 3) must have been made knowing that it was impossible to realize.” In the end, it is argued that Plan 1 and Plan 3 were a kind of assortment match to push ahead with Plan 2 set by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.
‘Yangpyeong-gun Plan 2’ is almost identical to the change route map being reviewed by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport…Possibility of pre-arrangement
This fact shows the possibility that ‘Yangpyeong-gun knew in advance that the route desired by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport was Plan 2’. The fact that ‘Yangpyeong-gun 2’, which has no problems on the outside, coincidentally coincides with the end point change proposal (Yangseo-myeon → Gangsang-myeon) submitted by the service company to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, adding to the doubt. Even the installation of an access road ( IC ) on National Support Local Road (Local Map) No. 88 is similar to the plan of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (terminal plan of Gangsang-myeon). It is hard to say that Yangpyeong-gun came up with almost the same plan as the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs in the absence of any information.
For this reason, suspicions are raised that the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs sent a service company to Yangpyeong-gun in advance to induce them to draw the ‘Yangpyeong-gun 2nd Plan’. Newstapa asked Mr. A, who seemed to be well aware of the inside story of the case, “Is it really a coincidence that the person in charge of Yangpyeong-gun drew the second plan?” Mr. A avoided an immediate answer, only repeating, “What Yangpyeong-gun has always wanted was to install an IC in Yangpyeong-gun.”
Minister Won Hee-ryong said, “Yangpyeong-gun wanted to change the route” when the controversy over preferential treatment for the first lady Kim Kun-hee’s family arose due to the change of the terminal. However, when it became known that Yangpyeong-gun had never requested to change the terminal, it changed its words, saying, “The service company first suggested changing the route.”