A lawsuit has begun seeking to lift the seizure preservation on a building identified as the borrowed-name asset of attorney Nam Uk, a key figure in the Daejang-dong development corruption case.
The Civil Agreement Division 47 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Ha Sung-won) held the first hearing on the 27th in a third-party objection lawsuit filed by real estate leasing company A against the government.
Earlier, in May, Company A filed a lawsuit seeking to lift the seizure preservation on a building it holds on the registry in Cheongdam-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul. Seizure preservation is a procedure that, through a court ruling, prevents discretionary disposal of assets suspected to have been obtained through crime before confiscation. In 2022, prosecutors viewed this building as the property of attorney Nam and froze it, citing that Nam held half of Company A's equity.
At the hearing, the sides clashed over who actually owns the building. Company A argued, "The target of the seizure in this case is Nam Uk, but Company A is the entity that substantively owns this real estate." The government countered, saying, "We must consider the source of funds and the background of the seizure preservation," effectively asserting that the real owner of the building is attorney Nam.
The bench then asked, "Has confiscation been sentenced against Nam Uk?" Because attorney Nam was not ordered to pay confiscation in the first-instance ruling in the Daejang-dong development corruption case, the court was essentially asking about the need for seizure preservation.
The government said, "There is room for dispute, but this is an issue for the criminal trial, not civil proceedings." Company A countered, "The prosecution did not appeal on the 31st of last month, so (the confiscation amount of 0 won) was finalized," arguing, "When there is no confiscation sentence, seizure preservation has no effect."
The court decided to hold another hearing at 2:40 p.m. on Jan. 29 next year. Whether attorney Nam is the building's real owner, and fundamentally whether seizure preservation is necessary, is expected to be the key issue in the upcoming proceedings.