On the 12th, during the audit of the Board of Audit and Inspection by the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee, the ruling and opposition parties fought over the neutrality of the Board of Audit and Inspection.
Rep. Yoon Sang-hyun of the People Power Party pointed out that last year there was no need for a retrial in relation to the West Sea civil servant shooting incident and statistics manipulation audit, but pointed out that this year was different and asked, “Why has the position changed so much?” He added, “Even if there was coercion or illegality (in the audit process), wouldn’t the conclusion be different?”
Kim Ho-cheol, Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection, explained, "During the course of the government investigation, new facts were discovered that were not discovered in our audit." Rep. Yoon also took issue with the appointment of Audit Committee members Lim Seon-sook and Lee Jin-guk, claiming, "It is a personnel action that undermines neutrality and independence. It is not the people's Board of Audit and Inspection, but the Party's Board of Audit and Inspection."
Representative Kwak Gyu-taek of the same party also argued, “The current Board of Audit and Inspection is telling the past Board of Audit and Inspection, ‘You were too political, the audit you conducted was an illegal audit,’ but in the eyes of the public, the current Board of Audit and Inspection is more political and is conducting audits according to illegal procedures.” He added, “The trial (related to statistical manipulation) is in progress, and they are rushing to overturn it.”
On the other hand, Rep. Park Gyun-taek of the Democratic Party of Korea questioned whether appropriate measures were taken against those who led the audit during the Yoon Seok-yeol administration. Rep. Park asked, “Has the Tiger faction (a faction centered around audit committee member Yoo Byeong-ho), which took the lead in targeted inspections, targeted inspections, and cover-up inspections, undergone personnel reform?” Director Kim responded by saying, “We are thoroughly holding accountable for coercive and illegal audits through the Operational Reform Task Force and the Government Investigation Follow-up Task Force,” and promised, “Our position is that factions will never be tolerated, and we will strictly manage them to ensure that factions do not exist in the future.”
When Representative Seo Young-kyo asked if he was willing to apologize for the coercive audit during the last administration, Director Kim said, "As we have said several times, we apologize to all those who were harmed by various illegalities in the audit process."
At the National Assembly audit on this day, the ruling party unanimously pointed out that the measures taken according to the results of the Board of Audit and Inspection's recent audit of the Supreme Court were weak. Rep. Kim Han-gyu of the Democratic Party of Korea raised the issue that there was no proper investigation into the specific use of the incentive money, saying, “Isn’t it true that the Supreme Court Chief Justice’s method of paying the incentive money was inappropriate?” He then criticized, “Why did they end up giving only a warning (to the Supreme Court)?” and “It’s not even the level of a soft bat.”
When Rep. Kim asked, “Has the Supreme Court reached an agreement on how the incentive money can be paid in the future?” Director Kim explained, “There has been no agreement.” When Rep. Kim also pointed out that "the Supreme Court is not (implementing) the results of the Board of Audit and Inspection's audit," Director Kim responded, "We will see if the precautions are being implemented well and see if there is any improvement in the next audit."
Rep. Park Ji-won of the same party pointed out, "Isn't the use of Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae unacceptable? I'm not requesting an investigation," and Director Kim responded, "I reviewed whether it could lead to a complaint, but I understand they decided it could not."
On this day, prior to the afternoon audit, lawmakers read the resolution to pay incentives related to the Supreme Court audit and the response to the Board of Audit and Inspection's request for data. Rep. Kim Eui-gyeom asked, "Can it be said that the chief secretary and the secretary put his (Supreme Court Chief Justice's) stamp on it, but I don't know?" Director Kim explained, "Because the person paying the incentive is the head of the institution, it appears to have the legal effect of being paid by the head of the institution."
Rep. Kim Yong-min said, "In the Supreme Court ruling in May 2025, then-presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung's violation of the Public Official Election Act was overturned and remanded, and encouragement was paid between the plenary session and after the ruling," and added, "Why was it paid? It was a money feast." On the other hand, Rep. Park Hyung-soo of the People Power Party protested, saying, "(The encouragement money) was paid by Chief Justice Kim Myeong-soo, and wasn't it paid in the same way even after Director Cho Hee-dae came in?" and called it a "biased audit."
Rep. Joo Jin-woo of the same party asked Director Kim, "If a Supreme Court justice used special activity expenses to play golf with his family, would it be a violation of the details of the use of special activity expenses?" Director Kim responded, "It seems to be a violation." Rep. Joo then asked, "Is it a violation if the president used special activity expenses for family golf?" Director Kim responded, "I am not speaking on the assumption that the reports are true or the allegations against any specific person are true." He added, "The Supreme Court justice is a common noun and cannot be identified, but the president can be identified, so it is not appropriate for me to make a statement as the chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection."
Meanwhile, when People Power Party lawmaker Park Hyeong-soo raised the need for an audit regarding the introduction of a single-stock leveraged exchange-traded fund (ETF), Director Kim promised, "For the sake of investor protection, we will properly look into how it is implemented and what problems there were in the process."
At the end of the day's audit, a heated argument broke out between the ruling party, which said 'action is needed', and the opposition party, which said 'other lawmakers were also absent', over Rep. Joo's absence for the live broadcast.
