South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs faces growing political scrutiny after personnel vetting lapses led to the appointment of a former diplomat convicted of leaking sensitive intelligence to an opposition lawmaker, according to records released by Rep. Jung Ae of the Democratic Party of Korea on May 14, 2026. The ministry delayed notifying its subsidiary body of the final Supreme Court ruling for over two months, resulting in the payout of roughly 15 million won in public salaries to an official who was legally required to be dismissed.
Appointment and Intelligence Leak Background
A subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the dismissal.
Supreme Court Ruling and Delayed Dismissal
The legal landscape shifted when the Supreme Court finalized a four-month prison sentence with a suspended execution for A on January 29, 2026. Despite this clear statutory rule, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not instruct the foundation to carry out the dismissal until April 2, 2026—63 days after the high court ruling. This administrative lag created an avoidable financial liability, as the foundation disbursed approximately 15 million won in salary to A during the intervening two months.
Administrative Disputed Dates and Salary Clawback
The ministry’s delayed notification triggered an internal dispute over the exact termination date and wage recovery. Upon issuing the directive on April 2, the ministry initially instructed the foundation to process the dismissal effective retroactively to January 29, the date of the Supreme Court verdict. However, the foundation pushed back, arguing that A had performed actual labor during those two months and that any salary clawback required careful legal evaluation. Lawmakers have criticized the foreign ministry for exercising appointment authority while leaving its affiliated foundation to clean up the administrative fallout.
Ongoing Legal Battles and Foundation Expenses
Following the dismissal order, A refused to accept the termination and filed an executive status confirmation lawsuit alongside a request for a provisional injunction to maintain the position pending a final ruling. When a court referred the dispute to mediation on April 27, the foundation queried the ministry regarding acceptable settlement boundaries and whether ministry officials would attend. The ministry replied the following day, stating that the foundation must independently manage the litigation as the direct party of interest.