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”.

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 (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. 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, 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. 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 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 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 over corruption issues.

Researcher B 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 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 has also reported this as workplace harassment to the labor authorities.

In response, division head D 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, who accompanied the company representative while citing the director’s instructions, and researcher B, 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.