English translation of the original Korean report. Images and source documents may contain Korean text.

After being selected for Seoul’s public bidding project, improvement of hygiene environment at individual stores was halted… Responsible section chief admits ‘oversight’

It has been confirmed that Seongbuk District (District Head Lee Seung-ro) had allocated a budget to improve the hygiene environment of individual stores for the purpose of revitalizing the local business district, but the project could not be implemented due to the Election Management Commission’s judgment that it might violate the Public Office Election Act.

The project, which had gone through the district assembly’s deliberation, was halted at the implementation stage because legal issues were not confirmed before budget allocation.

According to the administrative planning committee’s review content at the 322nd regular session of the Seongbuk District Assembly on the 4th, during the 2025 fiscal year settlement review held on October 15th, the issue of unexecuted budget for the Seongbuk-dong Local Brand Business District Development Project was raised. Jeong Yoon-joo, a member of the Seongbuk District Assembly, questioned the reason for the unexecuted budget, which was noted as ‘possible violation of the Public Office Election Act’ in the execution balance.

Choi Jong-sam, Seongbuk District’s Regional Economy Section Chief, said, ‘Initially, we planned to support the improvement of the hygiene environment of individual stores, but after consulting with the Seongbuk District Election Management Commission, we found that providing individual support to these stores might violate the election law,’ and thus could not proceed with the project. The issue raised by the election commission was not the entire business district development project, but the direct support method for individual stores.

The project was implemented as a Seoul city public bidding project. Seongbuk District referred to other districts’ examples when submitting the project plan and was selected for the bidding. After budget allocation, the project could not be implemented when the election commission responded that it was difficult to provide support. The procedure to confirm the legality of the project was carried out later than the budget allocation and deliberation.

Jeong said, ‘At the time of budget allocation, it was initially considered possible, so the budget was allocated, and the main budget was passed. However, when we tried to start the project, we consulted the election commission and found that it might violate the Public Office Election Act, so it was not allowed,’ pointing out the administrative procedure issue. He then questioned whether the election commission’s judgment could have been sufficiently obtained before submitting the budget to the assembly.

In response, the section chief said, ‘That was our oversight.’ Jeong pointed out that not only was the budget secured through the assembly’s deliberation not used, but it could also cause administrative consistency and trust issues for the merchants who expected support. He also demanded that other departments should check for possible election law violations before budget allocation, and the section chief responded that they would improve it.

This case shows that even if a local government is selected for a public bidding project and receives the assembly’s budget approval, the project may be halted if legal review of the support method is not conducted in advance. It is also necessary to further check how Seongbuk District will improve the pre-approval legal review process.