Controversy surrounding the selection process for a new national medical school in Gwangju, South Jeolla Province, is escalating in the political arena. Sunchon National University narrowly edged out Mokpo National University by just 1.30 points, with the issue of site acquisition for the proposed medical school and hospital becoming a focal point of debate.
On September 3, Seo Mi-hwa, a senior member of the Democratic Party, raised strong questions about the evaluation process after receiving a report from the Gwangju Integrated Special City and the Jeonnam Research Institute regarding the candidate university selection for the new national medical school.
Seo specifically highlighted the issue of Sunchon National University's site acquisition. She stated, "Above all, the lack of secured land for Sunchon National University poses the greatest risk for establishing the medical school. Mokpo National University has been working for a long time to secure land for its medical school, while Sunchon National University entered the evaluation with a conditional agreement that relies on future confirmation of site acquisition."
According to available documents, Sunchon National University proposed a site of 151,719 square meters near the drama filming location in Jorye-dong, Suncheon. On August 12, Suncheon City, the Suncheon City Council, and Sunchon National University signed a memorandum of understanding to lease the city-owned land for free if the establishment of the national medical school is confirmed.
As a result, the ownership of the land currently lies with Suncheon City, not Sunchon National University. This means that the university does not own the land but would secure usage rights through a free lease if the medical school is established.
In contrast, Mokpo National University has presented approximately 50,000 pyeong of state-owned land for the construction of its medical school and hospital during the evaluation process.
The key issue is how the differing statuses of land acquisition were reflected in the actual evaluation. According to evaluation materials released on September 3, the "certainty of site and location acquisition" was rated on a five-point scale. However, five of the eight evaluators awarded the same score to both universities, while the remaining three gave only a 0.5-point difference.
This raises concerns that the evaluation did not adequately differentiate between already secured land and land that is contingent on future acquisition.
Seo questioned the fairness of the evaluation, stating, "A university without even the minimum legal requirement of land participated in the evaluation with just a blueprint, yet was assessed on the same basis as a university that already owns land."
However, it is necessary to conduct further legal review before concluding that Sunchon National University's current lack of land constitutes a legal disqualification. The regulations for university establishment and operation generally require that the land be owned by the university. The Ministry of Education has previously stated that securing land ownership is a principle.
Nonetheless, the Ministry has also indicated that if the land acquisition plan is deemed reasonable and feasible, it can be evaluated through the review process. Therefore, it remains to be seen how the free lease agreement with Suncheon City will be legally recognized in the process of establishing the national medical school.
Consequently, the critical question is not whether Sunchon National University will be disqualified but rather how much the Jeonnam Research Institute considered these legal and administrative risks during the candidate selection process and reflected them in the scoring.
The composition of the evaluation committee is also fueling the controversy. The detailed operational plan prepared by the Jeonnam Research Institute stipulated that the eight evaluators should be balanced across five specialized areas. In particular, it was confirmed that the area of "national university hospital operation and construction" should include individuals with experience in operating national university hospitals, as well as experts in hospital construction and medical facility design.
However, of the eight evaluators, seven were from the medical field, and only one was a financial expert, with no experts in medical facility design or construction included. Furthermore, the selection of evaluators was finalized just before the evaluation. Although the evaluation took place on August 29, the final eight evaluators were confirmed by 6 p.m. on August 28, according to the Jeonnam Research Institute.
There are concerns about whether the evaluation committee adequately reflected the expertise needed to assess the progress, administrative procedures, design and construction timelines, and land acquisition feasibility for the new medical school and hospital.
The final score difference between the two universities was minimal, with Sunchon National University scoring 89.15 and Mokpo National University scoring 87.85. Notably, in the "faculty acquisition plan," Sunchon National University received 21.72 points, while Mokpo National University received 20.55 points, resulting in a 1.17-point difference. This means that most of the overall score difference of 1.30 points occurred in this category.
Conversely, in the educational facility acquisition plan, Mokpo National University scored 18.57 points, slightly ahead of Sunchon National University's 18.22 points.
Another point of contention raised by the political circles in the southwestern region is the issue of "medical vulnerability." The evaluation focused on five areas: the system for promoting the establishment of the medical school, educational facility acquisition plans, educational hospital acquisition plans, faculty acquisition plans, and the roles and responsibilities of the medical school and educational hospital. However, there was no independent indicator included to assess the degree of medical vulnerability in the regions being compared.
Seo criticized this, stating, "It is contradictory not to evaluate medical vulnerability when establishing a medical school to improve the realities of medically underserved areas."
The controversy has now escalated to the courts. On September 3, Mokpo National University filed a lawsuit against Gwangju Mayor Min Hyung-bae, seeking to annul the selection and recommendation of candidate universities for the national medical school and requesting an injunction to suspend the effectiveness of the selection and recommendation.
Mokpo National University argues that the verification of Sunchon National University's land acquisition plan does not adequately meet the legal requirements for establishing a medical school, among other issues.
As a result, the controversy that has followed the announcement of candidate universities on August 30 has moved beyond a simple regional conflict or competition between universities, entering a phase where the appropriateness of evaluation criteria, the expertise of evaluators, and the legal feasibility of land acquisition plans are being scrutinized.
Seo Mi-hwa urged, "No matter how tight the timeline is, how can we conduct such a hasty, unfair, and inadequate evaluation? Mayor Min Hyung-bae and the integrated special city must provide a detailed and convincing explanation of this evaluation to the residents of the southwestern region who are expressing their frustration."
Ultimately, to resolve this controversy, there is a growing call for transparency in evaluation materials and objective verification rather than political disputes.
Given the narrow margin of 1.30 points that could determine the fate of a 36-year regional aspiration, it is essential for the integrated special city and the Jeonnam Research Institute to provide clearer explanations regarding the legal review of Sunchon National University's land use plan, the detailed scoring criteria for "certainty of site and location acquisition," the absence of medical facility design and construction experts in the evaluation committee, the specific reasons for the 1.17-point difference in the faculty acquisition plan, and why medical vulnerability was excluded as a separate evaluation criterion.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.