The building in Gangnam-gu for which lawyer Nam Wook applied to lift the asset freeze. Yonhap News

A civil lawsuit has commenced to determine whether to lift the asset freeze imposed by prosecutors on a building owned by lawyer Nam Wook under a corporate name, who is a key figure among the private developers that orchestrated and pushed forward the Daejang-dong development corruption case.

The trial will focus on whether the building can be considered as effectively owned by lawyer Nam, and whether it is necessary to keep the building frozen when no forfeiture judgment has been issued against lawyer Nam.

The Civil Division 47 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Ha Sung-won) held the first hearing on the third-party objection lawsuit filed by real estate rental company A against the state on the 27th.

Previously, A, the registered owner of the building in Cheongdam-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, filed a lawsuit in May seeking the lifting of the asset freeze.

Asset freeze is a procedure to prevent the disposal of assets suspected to be obtained through criminal activity before a court ruling on forfeiture. In 2022, prosecutors froze the building, deeming it to be lawyer Nam's property, based on the fact that lawyer Nam held a 50% stake in A, the building's owner.

Arguments regarding the beneficial ownership of the building were exchanged during the trial on this day.

A's side stated, "While the suspect for forfeiture is Nam Wook, A effectively owns the real estate. Since it is not Nam Wook's property, we are seeking to lift the asset freeze as a third-party objection."

Conversely, the state, as the defendant, argued that to determine who effectively owns the assets, one must examine the relationship between the registered owner and the subject of the forfeiture order, the source of funds, and the circumstances of the asset freeze, asserting that lawyer Nam is the beneficial owner of the building.

The court questioned, "The preservation of the building is based on the premise of forfeiture, but has any forfeiture judgment been rendered against Nam Wook?" and asked about the fundamental necessity of the preservation.

The state responded, "There is room for dispute regarding the asset freeze. That is a matter to be debated in the criminal trial; forfeiture is not handled in civil proceedings."

A's side stated, "We filed this lawsuit arguing that it is not effectively owned by Nam Wook. However, not guilty verdicts were rendered on the charges related to the asset freeze case, and the prosecution did not appeal, so it has been finalized," referring to the first-instance ruling on the Daejang-dong development corruption allegations made on the 31st of last month.

They added, "In this situation, it is questionable what underlying right of preservation exists," and argued, "There is an obligation to lift the asset freeze as soon as possible."

The court stated, "Both the right of preservation and the issue of whether it is Nam Wook's actual asset are at stake," and requested both parties to submit their opinions on the related matters by the next hearing.

The court decided to hold another hearing on January 29th of next year to deliberate on the issues.

Yonhap News