As the involvement of unqualified individuals and allegations of bribery have surfaced at public infrastructure project sites, there are growing calls to examine the systemic flaws in the management of public construction projects. 

Hani Ilbo has confirmed circumstances where an unqualified individual intervened in equipment dispatch and scheduling at the Hamyang-Ulsan Expressway construction site and received money from equipment operators.

According to testimonies from equipment operators and site personnel obtained by Hani Ilbo, an unqualified individual, referred to as Mr. A, effectively acted as the dispatch office for the input of heavy equipment such as dump trucks and bulldozers at the site.

Although Mr. A was neither affiliated with the civil engineering subcontractor nor had registered as a business, testimonies indicated that it was difficult to deploy equipment without going through him.

Multiple equipment operators stated, "We had to give money to Mr. A to get our equipment in," and "It was a form of toll for dispatch."

Given that money was repeatedly paid to a specific individual without any official contracts or fee structures, it is difficult to view these transactions as legitimate, according to reports.

Testimonies have also confirmed that the amounts exchanged varied depending on how the equipment was deployed.

On-site, these were categorized as "tangttigi" and "woladae." Tangttigi is a method where costs are calculated per deployed equipment unit, while woladae involves deploying equipment in blocks for a certain period.

According to testimonies from involved parties, approximately 15,000 to 20,000 won was paid for tangttigi, and several hundred thousand won for woladae. More significant than the amount is the fact that this structure operated repeatedly and systematically.

Hani Ilbo's investigation suggests that the subcontractor, which received civil engineering work from the main contractor that secured the public project, effectively transferred dispatch authority to Mr. A. Mr. A, in turn, appears to have received money from equipment operators under the guise of fees.

In construction sites, equipment procurement and dispatch are typically managed by subcontractors. If this authority was handed over to an unqualified individual, it cannot be seen as mere convenience but a structural problem.

Construction machinery does not have a separate "brokerage" structure like cargo. The fundamental principle is for the equipment owner or rental company to directly deploy the machinery to the site.

Therefore, if an unqualified third party controlled dispatch and collected fees, it is highly likely to be viewed as an unofficial intermediary intervention rather than a normal business activity.

The problem is that this structure does not appear to be an isolated incident at a specific site. Based on the testimonies of equipment operators, the intervention of unqualified individuals in dispatch and the payment of referral fees have been a common practice both inside and outside the site, not just a one-off event.

One official stated, "It was strange at first, but over time, everyone adapted to that structure," adding, "The older the site, the more accepted it was as 'the way things are done.'"

Allegations of Influence and Power Backing

What is more noteworthy is the possibility that personal connections and power may have operated behind this structure.

Whispers in regional political circles and parts of the construction industry suggest that the names of a senior national assembly member and a former executive of a large construction company are being mentioned as background for Mr. A's ability to exercise dispatch authority despite being unqualified.

However, this cannot be concluded as fact at this stage, and further verification is needed.

Hani Ilbo attempted to contact relevant political figures and former construction company officials multiple times for fact-checking but received no response.

Legally, there are also significant issues.

Under the Construction Industry Basic Act, individuals not registered are generally restricted from intervening in construction-related transactions by acting as brokers or intermediaries.

In particular, if core functions such as equipment dispatch were performed, it could be deemed unlicensed brokerage. Furthermore, if the quid pro quo nature of bribery is confirmed, the possibility of criminal liability cannot be ruled out.

Most shocking, however, is that such a structure still persists at public infrastructure project sites and has not been eradicated.

Highway construction is a representative public project. Nevertheless, if a structure has been maintained where an unqualified individual controls dispatch and equipment operators must pay money to deploy their equipment, this is a systemic problem, not an individual's deviation.

Ultimately, the essence of this issue is not simply about bribery.

It is about who created this structure and why it has been able to persist until now.

There are calls for thorough investigation and systemic review by the relevant authorities into this matter, which has exposed an informal power structure maintained in the name of custom even at public construction sites.