On the 17th, in courtroom 302 of the Seoul High Court, leading domestic appraisal institutions issued diametrically opposing opinions over "From Point No. 800298," known as a work by master artist Lee Ufan.
One side said it was a forgery, and the other insisted it was authentic. It was a dispute over a single painting, but the court's question was simple: On what basis can it be considered real?
This work has been identified as the painting that former senior prosecutor Kim Sang-min delivered to first lady Kim Keon-hee's side. If the work is recognized as authentic and deemed to have an economic value exceeding 1 million won, it could affect the determination of whether the anti-graft law was violated. In contrast, the former prosecutor's side maintains that "the work is a forgery and has no value."
After the hearing, some in and out of legal circles reacted by saying, "Why not put the artist on the stand and ask directly?" But both the former prosecutor's side and the special counsel who indicted the case reportedly did not call Lee Ufan as a witness. That is because the way a court determines a work's authenticity differs from common sense.
◇ "In the 2016 forgery case, the court rejected Lee's statements"
Legal circles point to the 2016 "large-scale Lee Ufan forgery case" as the backdrop. At the time, dozens of forgeries disguised as Lee's works were circulated at some galleries in Insadong, Seoul, and police seized 13 of them and launched an investigation. Based on the appraisal by the National Forensic Service and statements by individuals involved in the counterfeiting, police concluded they were forgeries.
However, on June 27 and 29, 2016, Lee personally visited the police station twice, examined all the paintings, and reached a different conclusion. His position was that all of the works were genuine, painted by him. He said, "I couldn't find anything wrong with a single one of the 13 pieces. The breathing, rhythm, and method of applying color are all mine. An artist can tell immediately when seeing their own work." Lee then held a press conference on June 30, appealing, "I am the artist. Why don't you believe me?"
Nevertheless, police continued the investigation on the premise of forgery. In addition to records of money transfers in the counterfeiters' accounts, they cited a National Forensic Service analysis suggesting that marble powder and glass powder were artificially used as pigments in the disputed paintings to evoke the feel of genuine works. Those implicated in the forgery case were eventually arrested and brought to trial.
The court's judgment was no different. In Jan. of the following year, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced the ringleader of the forgery and others indicted on charges including private document forgery to prison terms. Based on the National Forensic Service appraisal and related testimonies, the court found the works to be forgeries and did not accept Lee's statements to police to the effect that "all are genuine."
The bench found that, despite multiple circumstances strongly suggesting forgery, it was difficult to overturn that on the artist's opinion alone. The court said, "Even in the opinions of multiple experts, unique features found only in the defendants' works—such as artificial aging—were identified, which are not present in Lee's other works," and added, "The artist's opinion is important, but considering the defendants' credible statements and the facts, the artist's opinion cannot be deemed superior." The prison sentences handed down were later finalized by the Supreme Court.
A legal source familiar with internal circumstances said, "In this case, the special counsel's decision not to call Lee as a witness took into account that the court rejected his statements during the 2016 forgery situation," adding, "Even then, the artist's testimony alone did not settle the matter, and Lee's advanced age now was also considered." Lee was born in 1936 and is 90 this year.
◇ "Lack of a single authoritative appraisal institution"
The art world sees the latest controversy as again exposing the limits of Korea's art appraisal system. After the Korea Art Appraisal Board, once the largest domestic appraisal body, closed in 2018, private institutions such as the Korea Galleries Association and the Korea Art Appraisal Research Center have effectively led appraisals. It is a structure in which a gallery-industry-centered organization and a curator-centered organization render different judgments.
The past controversy over the late artist Chun Kyung-ja's "Beautiful Woman" showed the same problem. The artist said, "It's not my painting," but expert appraisals and the prosecution's judgment differed. It is cited as a representative case where an artist's conviction clashed with institutional appraisal.
In the end, the court looks at "what is proven" rather than "who painted it." When the artist's eye, an appraiser's experience, and the market's evaluation diverge, the ultimate standard is objective materials and evidentiary value. Legal circles say this is why Lee Ufan did not take the stand.
An art-world source said, "Because each galleries association or private appraisal body operates independently, different results can emerge depending on interests or on how the appraisal commissioners are composed," adding, "To resolve this, building a national-level art appraisal infrastructure or introducing an 'appraisal history management system' is urgent."