On the 5th, police investigating allegations of preferential treatment in the large-scale experience facility development project in Gwangju City conducted a search and seizure at Gwangju City Hall. Gwangju Mayor Kang Ki-jeong strongly protested against the police investigation, using the term 'abuse of investigative power.'
According to Yonhap News, the Gwangju Police Agency's Economic Crime Investigation Team sent investigators to City Hall on that morning and conducted a search of the relevant department for the Yeongsan River Exciting Zone project. The police are investigating allegations that Gwangju violated the bidding guidelines and provided preferential treatment to select a specific company.
The Yeongsan River Exciting Zone is a project that involves investing 41.6 billion won to create various experience facilities in the vicinity of Sandonggyo in Dongrim-dong, Buk-gu, Gwangju. The Exciting Zone is expected to include a 4,000 square meter Asian water history themed experience center and a 31,800 square meter water play experience facility.
Gwangju City carried out the international design competition in two stages. In the first stage last December, 11 entries were selected, and five projects advanced to the second stage, with the final winners announced in February. During this process, the eliminated companies claimed that Gwangju violated the bidding guidelines and benefited the winning company, leading them to file a lawsuit. Although the court recently dismissed an injunction filed by the eliminated company to prohibit the design competition, the police continue their investigation regardless of the court's decision.
Gwangju City maintains that this police search is an unjust investigation. The city issued a statement saying, 'Despite the court's dismissal of the injunction, we are very regretful that the police's search has undermined the credibility of the administration.'
Mayor Kang Ki-jeong also reportedly criticized the police investigation during a regular meeting that day, using phrases such as 'abuse of investigative power' and 'Are you preventing active administration in the name of investigation?'