One Battle After Another with our adoption records…Edaily: ”Allegations of corruption in the ‘30 billion won adoption records project’…senior officials of public institutions reported to police.”
Edaily Article:
“Allegations of corruption in the ‘30 billion won adoption records project’… senior officials of public institutions reported to police”.
+
Posted to Paperslip on March 24th, 2026.
Original Korean article published on March 23rd, 2026.
Translation via ChatGPT.
BOLDS and blue highlighting ours.
Thanks to a Paperslip Contributor for the link.
+
Paperslip Note:
This regards corruption involving the upcoming transfer of all former Korean Adoption Agency records from NCRC’s Temporary Storage Facility in Goyang, Gyeonggi-do to the Seongam Branch of the National Archives.
Let’s put it this way: The Korean Government is hellbent on destroying our adoption records. Each move of our former Korean Adoption Agency files involves another opportunity for further degradation of our adoption files.
We have unfortunately known since we first found out in early 2024 about the first transfer of all former Korean Adoption Agency files to NCRC on July 19th, 2025 that birth family search through the “paper trail” was about to be severely curtailed, due to NCRC’s long history of willful incompetence.
With the upcoming second transfer of all former Korean Adoption Agency files, this time from NCRC’s Temporary Storage Facility to the Seongam Branch of the National Archives — which Korean Adoptee activists pushed for, for better or for worse — there is now a NEW opportunity for further degradation of our adoption files and history. This second transfer is slated to happen at some unknown time in 2026.
The bottom line is: for any Korean Adoptees who do NOT have birth parent information already in their possession, birth family search will largely boil down to DNA testing.
We have done our best to WARN the community about the dangers of NCRC taking over the former adoption agency files. While we take no satisfaction in seeing those concerns borne out, the outcome does underscore that our warnings were grounded in a clear understanding of what could happen once NCRC assumed responsibility. We hope this serves as an indication to Korean Adoptees that our perspective is informed and credible. Unfortunately, no other Korean Adoptee groups or Korean Government Agencies consistently raised awareness about the pending transfer of these files prior to July 19th, 2025 when the file transfer to NCRC first began.
As reward for our longstanding efforts to inform the Korean Adoption community about the TRUTH, we have been silenced by some Korean Adoptee groups. We sincerely wish you luck out there. Korean Adoptees — who are unfortunately far too easily to mislead — are unfortunately going to need it. Deliberate gaslighting of the vulnerable can have serious, permanent consequences. We hope that other Korean Adoptee led organizations take this message seriously.
Veritatem dic; aliter veritas te inveniet.
Tell the truth; otherwise the truth will find you.
+
See Related:
Hankook Ilbo Article:
"Spent 1.5 Billion Won..." Government to Relocate Adoption Records Archive Just 3 Months After Setup”.
Naver News Article:
‘“Adoption Records Will Be Damaged” — (NCRC Worker) Whistleblowing Followed By Workplace Bullying…Complaint Filed With Labor Office’
Budget For File Transfer From Temporary Storage Facility To National Archives Denied - Shocker.
Now More Than Ever, It’s Important To Safely Back Up Any Documents You Have Which Contain Birth Parent Information!
+
Below — ChatGPT translation of:
Edaily Article:
“Allegations of corruption in the ‘30 billion won adoption records project’… senior officials of public institutions reported to police”.
Paperslip Note — We have added (NCRC) or (National Archives) in parentheses to clarify whom the various individuals and organizations are throughout the text below.
Reporter: Seok Ji-heon
Published: March 23, 2026, 5:58 AM
“The Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency’s Anti-Corruption Investigation Unit has received a complaint.
Charges include abuse of authority and obstruction of business.
“Brokered deals for a corrupt company and oppressed dissenting staff.”
According to a report by Edaily, a working-level employee at the National Center for the Rights of the Child (NCRC, under the Ministry of Health and Welfare) has filed a complaint with the police against officials from the National Archives of Korea and senior staff within their own organization (NCRC). The complaint alleges collusion and systematic pressure on staff in order to hand over a government project worth approximately 30 billion won to a specific company.
Based on Edaily’s investigation on March 22, Mr./Ms. A, a records management specialist at the center (NCRC), filed a complaint on the 19th with the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency’s Anti-Corruption and Public Crimes Investigation Unit. Those named include researcher B and official C from the National Archives of Korea, and division head D from the center (NCRC). The charges include abuse of authority to obstruct the exercise of rights and interference with business.
Adoption records are permanent documents managed by the state and serve as key evidence for adoptees seeking their origins. However, due to the nature of decades-old paper records, many have become discolored and fragile. There have been increasing calls for urgent digitization to preserve them safely and improve access for adoptees.
The government has decided to transfer about 240,000 volumes of records to the (Seongam Branch of the) National Archives starting in the first half of this year to enhance professional management. The budget is estimated at around 30 billion won. Considering the fragile condition of the records, higher-than-usual scanning costs (about 800–1,000 won per page) apply, along with expenses for scanning and manual data entry of the vast volume (about 150 pages per volume), and the construction of a dedicated system for integrated management.
Mr./Ms. A (of NCRC) claims there are signs that the project was being steered toward a specific company. They allege that officials invoked the authority of the head of the National Archives and distorted objective expert opinions. The complaint also calls for an investigation into whether the head of the National Archives, Lee Yong-cheol, directly ordered or was involved in the scheme.
According to the complaint, official C from the National Archives attempted to enter a secure document storage area during a site visit in January, accompanied by a representative of a specific company, saying, “The director told us to go together with the contractor.” The company is reportedly closely partnered with another firm currently in litigation with the center (NCRC) over corruption issues.”
*Paperslip Note: We cannot say for sure, but it sounds as though NCRC is attempting to use a company related to the company responsible for loss or destruction of NCRC files in the past.
“Researcher B (of the National Archives) is also accused of providing false advice, claiming that “there is no problem” with gamma-ray sterilization—a method that clearly risks damaging records and contradicts recent research reports from the National Archives. The complainant’s side described this as “planned consulting” intended to help the company win the contract.
Within the center, division head D (of NCRC) is suspected of colluding with these parties. D allegedly excluded the working-level department and requested consulting from the National Archives to facilitate the participation of a specific company. It is also claimed that D exerted undue pressure on A—who opposed the plan due to concerns about record damage—including forcing the use of a carcinogenic sterilization method in the archives. A (of NCRC) has also reported this as workplace harassment to the labor authorities.
In response, division head D (of NCRC) denied all allegations in a statement to Edaily, saying, “We did not request consulting on the premise of participation by any specific private company.” Regarding workplace harassment, D stated, “If procedures begin, I will faithfully provide an explanation.”
Official C (of the National Archives), who accompanied the company representative while citing the director’s instructions, and researcher B (of the National Archives), accused of giving false advice despite recognizing the risk of record damage, did not respond to Edaily’s inquiries about alleged collusion or misuse of the agency head’s authority.”
+
We asked ChatGPT: What does this article mean for the rights of Korean Adoptees?
The original Korean article is a bit confusing, so below is a bit of ChatGPT analysis. As with all things AI, please take this with a grain of salt.
ChatGPT said:
“This article doesn’t directly change the law or rights of Korean adoptees—but it points to something very important for their real-world ability to exercise those rights.
Here’s what it means in practical terms:
1. Adoption records = core to adoptees’ rights
In South Korea, adoptees’ rights—especially the right to:
know their origins
access birth family information
verify identity and history
all depend heavily on adoption records.
These records are described in your article as:
permanent state-managed documents and key evidence
That’s accurate. Without them, rights exist on paper but are hard to use in reality.
2. The project is supposed to improve access
The government plan mentioned (digitizing ~240,000 volumes) is actually very significant for adoptees:
Digitization → easier searching and access
Centralized archive → less fragmentation across agencies
Preservation → prevents loss of aging paper records
If done properly, this could:
speed up family searches
reduce bureaucratic barriers
improve transparency
So in theory, this project supports adoptees’ rights.
3. The allegations threaten those rights indirectly
The complaint raises three serious risks:
a) Possible corruption in contractor selection
If the project is “steered” to a specific company:
quality may be compromised
oversight may be weakened
public trust is damaged
b) Risk of physical damage to records
The gamma-ray sterilization issue is especially serious.
If true, this could:
permanently damage fragile documents
destroy ink, paper integrity, or legibility
👉 That would directly harm adoptees’ ability to access their history—possibly irreversibly.
c) Suppression of internal dissent
The complaint says:
staff who raised concerns were pressured
expert opinions may have been distorted
That suggests:
safeguards inside the system may not be working
decisions might prioritize speed or contracts over preservation
4. What this means overall
In short:
Rights themselves are not being changed
But the infrastructure that makes those rights usable may be at risk
5. Why this matters beyond this case
This situation highlights a bigger issue in Korean adoptee rights:
Even when legal rights exist, they depend on:
record quality
government transparency
proper archival practices
If records are:
damaged
lost
altered
or poorly digitized
then adoptees may:
receive incomplete information
face delays
or never find their origins
Bottom line
This article is a warning sign, not a policy change.
If the allegations are true → it could undermine adoptees’ rights in practice
If investigated and corrected → it could strengthen accountability and protect those rights”