Controversy Over 'Kim Jung-sook's Clothing Expenses' as Opposition Says, "Are Clothing Costs a State Secret? Then They Should Be Returned After the Term"

"Protocol Expenses Must Be Transparently Disclosed"

First Lady Kim Jung-sook [Photo by Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Intern Reporter Kang Woo-seok] Jeong Mi-kyung, a Supreme Council member of the People Power Party, on the 28th criticized the Blue House for appealing a court ruling that ordered the disclosure of First Lady Kim Jung-sook's protocol expenses, saying, "If (the First Lady's) clothing costs are state secrets, shouldn't all her accessories, clothes, and handbags be returned after (President Moon Jae-in's) term ends?"

At the Supreme Council meeting held at the National Assembly that day, Jeong said, "The reason the Blue House gave for not disclosing the court's ruling to reveal the (clothing) costs was that it was a state secret, which led to this situation."

He questioned, "Is the brooch (worn by the First Lady) really worth over 200 million won, or is the counterfeit (fake) worth about 20,000 won?" He criticized, "If the clothing costs of the president's spouse were calculated using special activity funds, shouldn't that amount not exceed the president's own clothing costs?"

He then urged, "I hope the (First Lady's protocol expenses) will be transparently disclosed."

Earlier, the civic group Korea Taxpayers Federation (the Federation) requested the Blue House in June 2018 to disclose the First Lady's protocol expenses. When the Blue House refused, stating that "detailed information is confidential and difficult to disclose," the Federation filed an administrative lawsuit.

The Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 5 (Chief Judge Kim Soon-yeol) ruled on the 10th of last month in a lawsuit filed by Kim Seon-taek, chairman of the Korea Taxpayers Federation, against the Presidential Secretariat chief, canceling the refusal to disclose information. The court found the Blue House's judgment that the First Lady's protocol expenses were subject to non-disclosure illegal and ordered the disclosure of information except for personal data.

The Blue House submitted an appeal on the 2nd, disagreeing with the administrative court's ruling.