hankyoreh

Korea Director Kim Yoon-soo

A Seoul court ruled Tuesday that the state’s actions were improper in dismissing former National Museum of Contemporary Art, Korea Director Kim Yoon-soo, 74.

The Seoul High Court’s Ninth Administration Division, under Judge Park Byeong-dae, announced Tuesday that it had ruled for the plaintiff, former Director Kim, in his suit against the state filing for confirmation of the invalidity of his contract termination. The court also ordered that because the termination was invalid, payment of all wages until the date the contract expired should be paid to Kim, totaling 81.93 million Won ($73 thousand). Coming on the heels of a ruling nullifying the termination of former Arts Council Korea (ARKO) Chairman Kim Jeong-heon, 64, this decision has been just one more example of courts throwing the brakes on the Lee Myung-bak administration’s targeted reshuffling of figures in the cultural world.

In September 2003, Kim signed an employment contract with the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism (MCST), but in November 2008, roughly a year before his contract was set to expire in September 2009, the ministry notified him of the termination of this contract. In explaining its actions, MCST stated that Kim had violated regulations by notifying a broker of his decision before signing of a contract when purchasing the Marcel Duchamp work “La Boite en Valise,” and by failing to notify the Korea Customs Service.

Kim, a veteran of the progressive art world, was effectively persuaded to retire before his termination when Culture Minister Yu In-chon said, “The institution heads with political colors from the previous Roh Moo-hyun administration need to step down.” After losing his first trial in his attempt to invalidate the termination, Kim changed the aim of his request to claiming his unpaid wages after his contractual period expired midway through the appeal trial.

In its verdict, the court wrote in regards to the grounds for dismissal, “It has been acknowledged that Mr. Kim sent an official document stating ‘I have made the decision to purchase the artwork,’ but in light of the fact that he specified in the document the conditions that there first had to be ‘confirmation of authenticity’ and ‘negotiation over the price,’ and the fact that there was a possibility the art broker might sell the piece to another gallery if he did not send the document, it is difficult to conclude, as the state claims, that he made a ‘promise in advance.’”

Regarding claims that there was “not sufficient investigation of the price,” the court ruled, “Due to the infinite variation in prices for works of art, which are limited in number worldwide, not only is it impossible to assess them uniformly, but there is no market price existing for this work, which is one of a kind.” The court also stated, “It cannot be viewed as a violation of the law to decide on a prearranged price based on the specifications proposed by the broker in the absence of an appraisal price or prices from similar real transactions.”

In reference to claims of a failure to report to the Korea Customs Service, the court ruled, “As this work is a duty-free article with a taxation rate of 0 percent, there is no real reason for not reporting it to the customs superintendent in order to gain illicit profits.” For this reason, the court concluded, “The state’s termination of Mr. Kim’s employment contract, predicated on his violation of contractual duties, has no validity.”

Kim said, “I filed the lawsuit in order to rectify the fact that I was forced to retire dishonorably, dismissed under false charges.”

“It is fortunate that I was able to restore my reputation,” he added.

Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]