Unification Church foundation sought to sell $39 mil. in assets during probe: lawmaker

What assets did the Unification Church foundation try to sell, and why were both applications rejected?

The Unification Church foundation sought approval to dispose of land and buildings, not ordinary movable property. Its first application covered assets worth about 52 billion won in Seoul. A second covered roughly 300 million won in Gapyeong, east of Seoul. Together, the proposed sales totaled about 52.3 billion won.

The ministry’s key concern was not simply the sale itself. Religious foundations must receive approval before selling core property. Officials said the foundation had not adequately justified selling valuable assets or explained how it would use the money. That gap mattered because the foundation and its affiliates were under investigation by a special counsel and police.

The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism rejected both applications. Rep. Jin Sun-mee said the case exposed weaknesses in current rules. She urged clearer standards that could address asset sales by organizations under investigation, rather than relying mainly on approval procedures.

What is a nonprofit religious foundation, and what are its “core assets”?

A nonprofit religious foundation is an organization that manages money and property for religious or other stated public-benefit purposes, not to distribute profits to private owners. Its assets are expected to support the foundation’s mission. The article describes the Foundation for the Support of HSA-UWC as a religious foundation run by the Unification Church.

“Core assets” are property central to the organization’s continued work. In this case, the article specifically identifies land and buildings. Selling such property can reduce the foundation’s long-term resources, so the foundation must obtain approval from the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism before disposing of it.

That approval system is why the proposed sales became a public issue. The ministry rejected both applications because the foundation did not provide a specific plan for using the proceeds. More generally, the rule seeks to ensure that mission-related property is not sold without a clear organizational purpose.

How large were the proposed sales, and how does 52.3 billion won compare with $39 million?

The foundation’s proposed disposals were substantial. The first application involved approximately 52 billion won in land and buildings in Seoul. The second involved about 300 million won in Gapyeong, east of Seoul. Added together, the applications represented roughly 52.3 billion won in assets.

The article converts that total to about $39 million. That comparison helps readers outside South Korea understand the scale. It is an approximate currency conversion, so the dollar amount can vary with exchange rates. It does not mean the foundation proposed a separate $39 million transaction; the underlying valuation was stated in won.

The size mattered because the ministry said there was insufficient justification for selling high-value assets without a specific plan for the money. The proposed transactions were therefore significant both financially and institutionally. They concerned property that could represent a major part of a religious foundation’s long-term resources.

Why did the foundation’s corruption investigations make the timing and purpose of the asset sales especially important?

The timing raised concern because the foundation and its affiliates were under investigation when they sought approval. The article links those investigations to corruption allegations involving former President Yoon Suk Yeol. The church’s leadership is now standing trial on bribery, election meddling and embezzlement charges.

Selling land and buildings can quickly convert long-term property into money. Without a specific use plan, officials may have difficulty judging whether the sale supports the foundation’s mission or could complicate accountability. That is why the ministry cited the investigations and the lack of sufficient justification when rejecting the applications.

The article does not say the foundation misused, or planned to misuse, the proceeds. It reports a procedural concern about transparency and justification. Rep. Jin Sun-mee said the rules should better address asset disposals by organizations under investigation. The episode has therefore focused attention on timing, purpose and oversight.

What could happen if an organization under investigation were allowed to sell valuable land and buildings without explaining how it would use the money?

If an organization under investigation could sell valuable land and buildings without explaining the proceeds, oversight would become harder. Property is visible and identifiable. Cash from a sale can be moved, spent or mixed with other funds more quickly. That could complicate efforts to trace money or preserve assets relevant to an investigation.

The organization could also lose resources needed for its religious or public-benefit work. A sale without a clear purpose might leave members, donors or regulators unsure whether the transaction served the foundation’s mission. These are potential governance risks, not findings that this foundation misused money. The article says both applications were rejected because the proposed use was not specifically explained.

Stronger review could require a detailed use plan, supporting documents and safeguards before approval. Rep. Jin Sun-mee urged clearer rules for rejecting disposals by organizations under investigation. Such standards could protect assets while allowing justified sales to proceed.

What authority does the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism have over religious foundations’ property, and what changes did the lawmaker say are needed?

The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism acts as a gatekeeper for certain religious-foundation property transactions. Under the rule described in the article, nonprofit religious foundations must obtain ministry approval before disposing of core assets, including land and buildings. The ministry can therefore review proposed sales rather than allowing them automatically.

In this case, it rejected two applications. One involved about 52 billion won in Seoul assets, and the other involved roughly 300 million won in Gapyeong. Officials said the foundation had not sufficiently justified selling high-value property or provided a specific plan for using the proceeds while investigations were underway.

Jin Sun-mee said the current guidelines specify approval authority but lack clear grounds for rejection. She urged amendments that would strengthen oversight of organizations under investigation. The proposed change would make decisions more predictable and give the ministry a clearer basis for blocking risky or inadequately explained disposals.

Why do governments regulate how nonprofits sell property differently from how private companies sell their assets?

Governments regulate nonprofit property differently because a nonprofit’s assets are generally dedicated to a stated mission. The organization is not supposed to distribute its resources as private profit. Land and buildings may have been donated, built with member support or acquired to serve religious or public-benefit work. Protecting those assets helps preserve that purpose.

Private companies usually have owners or shareholders who can authorize sales as part of ordinary business decisions. A nonprofit foundation has a different accountability structure. Regulators, donors, members and beneficiaries may all have interests in how its property is used. That does not mean every nonprofit sale is improper. It means major disposals may receive extra review.

The article illustrates this system in South Korea. Religious foundations must obtain ministry approval before selling core assets such as land and buildings. The ministry rejected these applications because the foundation lacked a specific plan for the proceeds. Jin Sun-mee wants clearer rejection standards, especially during investigations.

Key Facts:

📌 The Seoul application covered about 52 billion won in assets.

📌 The Gapyeong application covered approximately 300 million won.

📌 Both requests lacked a specific plan for using sale proceeds.

📌 The foundation manages property for religious purposes, not private ownership.

📌 Land and buildings are identified as core assets.

📌 Ministry approval is required before disposing of those assets.

📌 The proposed disposals totaled approximately 52.3 billion won.