Korea Times Article:
“What Happens When A Truth Commission Reopens Wounds Instead Of Healing Them”.

The article below, while not about Korean Adoption, relates to the TRC / TRCK (Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Republic of Korea) Investigation more broadly. It provides useful context about the broader themes inherent in the TRC. There are many Korean victims whose grievances are represented within TRC 2 (starting December 10th, 2022 and concluding May 26th, 2025).

Please see the original article linked above for photos.

Bolds ours.

+

“Baek Nam-sik shares archival documents related to his father's case at his apartment in Jincheon, South Chungcheong Province, March 24. Courtesy of Jack Greenberg

By Jack Greenberg

Published May 9, 2025 7:00 am KST
Updated May 9, 2025 7:00 am KST

Editor’s note

This article is the third in a series of three on truth and reconciliation issues related to Korea's modern history. —ED.

JINCHEON, South Chungcheong Province — Baek Nam-sik, 76, was not yet two years old when his father and uncle vanished. Today, his only memories of them are a few fading photographs. His father, Baek Nak-yong, was taken from their home at the outset of the Korean War in 1950. Days later, his uncle, Baek Rak-jeong, disappeared while searching for him.

Nearly 75 years have passed since June 27, 1950, when Baek’s father was dragged away. Yet his son’s struggle for justice continues.

The Baek family’s story reveals how institutions meant to deliver justice and restore honor can instead become sources of betrayal and renewed trauma, especially in a divided society where deceased victims are still at risk of being classified as enemies of the state.

Baek Rak-yong / Courtesy of Baek Nam-sik

After the disappearance

Born in 1911, Baek Rak-yong worked as a reporter for the Dong-A Ilbo in Seoul. He was offered the post of county magistrate in Seocheon, South Chungcheong Province, prior to the war, but declined the position and opened a local branch office of the paper.

For Baek Nam-sik, learning about his father was never easy. At the end of the colonial period, the elder Baek had sold off family land and invested the proceeds in a gold mine in the province.

“That led to our downfall,” Baek said. “We began to live in misery, unable to pay for even basic expenses, from food to our grandparents’ medicine. Even after selling personal belongings, we had to rely on wild chives to stave off hunger.”

He grew up knowing his family was under surveillance. Sitting on the floor of his apartment in the township of Gwanghyewon in Jincheon, he recalled: “In my house, speaking about my father was taboo. I didn’t even know how many aunts or uncles I had. My mother, who cut ties with her own family, never told us. She was too afraid. The fear was real.”

In 2006, shortly after the launch of Korea’s first Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) under President Roh Moo-hyun, Baek learned that the National Guidance League massacres would be investigated, and that families of supposed victims could file petitions. The procedure for investigation offered an opportunity to break decades of silence. Baek began gathering documents, but delays kept the case from being submitted in time. The TRC’s reestablishment under President Moon Jae-in reopened the door, and on Dec. 10, 2020, Baek personally filed his petition.

The National Guidance League was an organization founded by Korean officials in 1949 to monitor and suppress alleged leftists. Despite its official goal of ideological rehabilitation, it functioned as a tool of surveillance and reduced members to second-class citizens. At the outbreak of the Korean War, a state-orchestrated campaign of preventive killings was carried out on these people, intended to eliminate potential threats behind the front lines. Killed alongside them were detainees facing trial and political prisoners held in penitentiaries south of Pyeongtaek and Suwon in Gyeonggi Province.

Baek Rak-jeong / Courtesy of Baek Nam-sik

TRC’s first findings

At its meeting on Nov. 28, 2023, the TRC concluded that Baek Rak-yong and his brother Rak-jeong were among 22 residents of South Chungcheong Province executed in June or July 1950 in Golyeonggol, Daejeon, “on suspicion of being members of the National Guidance League or for related reasons.”

But the report provided later to Baek cited a 1968 police document labeling his father a Workers’ Party member and his uncle a “vicious collaborator.” This surveillance file had been created long after their deaths, with no apparent evidence. “They said my uncle was a collaborator. Based on what?” Baek said. “A single document written by a surveillance cop, calling him a traitor. That’s not justice. That’s a cover-up.”

Surveillance of the family traces back to 1947, when both men were arrested for protesting grain requisitions. The following year, they were charged under Proclamation No. 2, issued by the U.S. Army Forces in the Pacific in 1945. This decree, enforced after liberation, banned dissent and defiance of military orders. Baek Rak-yong was given a two-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, while Rak-jeong was sentenced to one year in prison.

The TRC determined that Proclamation No. 2 was unlawful and that anyone indicted under it prior to the establishment of the Republic of Korea should have been acquitted under the General Amnesty Decree (enacted 1948). The commission also cited a 2021 court ruling that found Ordinance No. 2 “too broad and vague in scope, making it difficult for an average citizen of ordinary judgment to foresee which conduct was prohibited.”

In February 2024, Baek Nam-sik filed a criminal complaint against then-TRC Chair Kim Kwang-dong, accusing him of defamation. By July, the case was closed without indictment, with prosecutors citing insufficient grounds.

Yet the story did not end there. In September 2024, the TRC passed a resolution to reinvestigate the case of Baek Rak-jeong, triggered by the discovery of a military tribunal judgment stating only that Baek Rak-jeong had been sentenced to death. It was the first time the commission had exercised its authority to reopen a case on its own initiative.

The decision to reopen the case revealed sharp divisions within the commission. It also marked a significant use of the TRC’s authority to override a previous truth-finding decision — an act that some view as a necessary correction, and others as a dangerous precedent that could undermine the credibility of the commission’s past work. Chair Kim and Standing Commissioner Lee Ok-nam questioned whether Baek Rak-jeong should even be considered a victim of the National Guidance League or the Preventive Detention system, arguing instead that he may have violated the National Security Forces Act. Commissioner Oh Dong-seok pushed back, emphasizing that “if the death was lawful due to a ruling, then the human rights violations that occurred during the military tribunal must naturally also be examined.”

While Baek suspects the reinvestigation was an act of retaliation orchestrated by Kim, Kwan Tae-yoon, chair of Minbyun (Lawyers for a Democratic Society), suggested the case offered Kim an opportunity to set a precedent for overturning other truth-finding decisions involving individuals who had received court-martial judgments — an “ideological offensive,” he warned would “justify and legitimize judicial killings and massacres, merely on the basis of formal judgments.”

A sign reports the process of excavations in Golryeonggol, Feb. 21. Courtesy of Jack Greenberg

A divided commission

Before Baek’s case was reopened, Chair Kim and other conservative commissioners were already under criticism for delaying decisions in similar cases. On Oct. 31, 2023, commissioners Lee Sang-hoon, Oh Dong-seok, and Lee Sang-hee walked out of a meeting in protest after the remaining five commissioners voted to defer truth-finding for six out of 21 applicants in another National Guidance League and Preventive Detention case.

Kim further fueled the controversy by suggesting that “perpetrators who joined hostile forces and committed arson and murder could be summarily executed given the circumstances at the time.” He made the remark during a visit with bereaved families and later repeated it before lawmakers, effectively appearing to justify the execution of civilians without due process.

Five commissioners proceeded on Dec. 3, 2024, to cancel the original truth-finding decision and dismiss the petition concerning Baek Rak-jeong, although a minority of commissioners boycotted the vote. Baek filed an objection, which was rejected on April 1. However, three commissioners — Lee Sang-hoon, Oh Dong-seok and Heo Sang-soo — issued a minority opinion, arguing that the investigation was inadequate and procedurally flawed.

A sharply argued dissent

The minority opinion presented a detailed legal argument citing cases from the first TRC. It raised serious concerns about Baek Rak-jeong’s death during the Korean War, concluding that his death could not be considered lawful. His arrest and detention appear to have occurred without a warrant and were marked by procedural violations, including the state’s failure to notify his family after the execution, constituting clear abuses of state authority.

The opinion further noted that Baek Rak-jeong was sentenced to death on Jan. 6, 1951, one of 184 individuals tried on the same day, 48 of whom were also given death sentences, suggesting the proceedings were perfunctory.

Finally, the minority warned that canceling the decision outright rather than amending factual details like the date or cause of death could result in Baek Rak-jeong no longer being recognized as part of a collective massacre. This could not only jeopardize the family’s right to future reparations but also distort the public historical record by suggesting his execution was lawful and justified.

A debate is held on the resolution of past history and restoration of historical justice at the National Assembly in Seoul, April 25. Courtesy of Jack Greenberg

Determined to see justice prevail

The TRC’s dismissal of his objection has only hardened Baek’s resolve. He confirmed plans to pursue further legal action. But this case, he insists, is about more than his own family.

“It’s not just about my father or my uncle,” he said. “It’s about making sure no one else has to go through this. I’m old now. I don’t know how much longer I can keep fighting. But I won’t stop.”

He added: “I hope that families of prominent victims won’t remain silent to protect their reputations. We need more people to speak out for the sake of future generations.”

Baek’s struggle shows the tightrope the TRC is walking when it “uncovers” and articulates the truth. As in Baek’s case, many surviving records are state-generated, created during a period of systemic rights violations. Those who argue they are “going by the book” may cite these documents as objective evidence, but they were produced during a period of authoritarian rule and systematic repression. Rather than neutral records, these documents often served as instruments of control meant to obscure, distort and justify state violence. On the flip side, memory has proven fragile over time. The surviving family members of victims were too young to remember events directly, and memories have been eroded over decades of fighting against trauma and silence.

While the work of a truth commission can easily be stalled, reinterpreted or even reversed in today’s increasingly fractured and politicized landscape, where memory is partial and documents are suspect, there is a need to explicitly ground its work in international human rights law, affirming that victimhood does not depend on ideological purity.

With Korea’s second TRC facing a looming deadline, many bereaved families fear that official recognition may never come, particularly as cases are delayed or suspended by reason that “some things may never be fully known.” At the same time, families still worry that rather than using a balance of probabilities that concedes systemic injustice and patterns of state behavior, some of their loved ones could be dismissed by this TRC as collaborators, based on potentially biased documents.

A memorial stands in Golryeonggol, seen Feb. 21. Courtesy of Jack Greenberg

Baek's case and others like his should be carefully studied as the possibility of a third TRC looms large. As the need for accountability and justice persists, lawmakers will face increasing calls to address these matters, either through new legislation or by establishing clearer guidelines on investigative methodology. Such steps will be crucial in ensuring that the lessons of the past are not forgotten and that the suffering of victims is properly acknowledged in future reconciliation efforts.

Jack Greenberg works as a consultant, researcher and freelance writer. His current focus is on heritage and conservation issues, historical memory debates, truth-seeking and reconciliation and civilian massacres of the 1950-53 Korean War. He was the recipient of the Global Korea Scholarship and earned a master's in international studies at Korea University. He is also an alum of McGill University.”