A solar power company in South Jeolla Province has rebutted allegations made in a criminal complaint filed against it, after police launched an investigation into claims that the firm lured tens of billions of won in investment under the pretext of selling a solar power plant but failed to fulfill the contract.
The South Jeolla Provincial Police Agency is investigating those involved after receiving a complaint against two individuals, including A, the chief executive of South Jeolla-based solar power developer S Company, on charges of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (fraud), occupational breach of trust, and occupational embezzlement.
A and others promised to complete and deliver the power plant by December 31, 2024, and received a total of 3.95 billion won from the complainant, including a down payment and construction contract payment. However, the complainant claims that despite paying the full amount requested, the power plant has still not been transferred to B.
In a statement sent to The Seoul Economic Daily on the 27th, S Company said, "We learned of the delay only after receiving an official document from KEPCO following the signing of the contract, and since we had been communicating with the transferee about the possibility of delays in KEPCO construction, the contract itself specified the possibility that completion could be postponed due to KEPCO construction delays."
Regarding the claim that the company failed to transfer the solar power plant despite receiving the final payment, the company said, "We were unable to proceed with the transfer because compensation for damages arising from the late payment of the interim and final installments had not been paid."
On the allegation that it delayed contract fulfillment for various reasons even after the plant's completion, the company said, "We were not simply transferring shares, but were following the prescribed procedures to transfer the entire business, including land, equipment, and permits, and we were proceeding according to the contract."
Regarding the claim that the complainant was deprived of an opportunity for a low-interest loan from a financial institution because notification of the completion of pre-use inspection was delayed, the company explained, "There is no obligation in the contract to give prior notification, and we understood that the transferee's financial situation had deteriorated, leading to delays in the interim payment and ultimately the use of private loans for the final payment."
Meanwhile, police have completed face-to-face questioning between the complainant and the accused, and are reportedly examining the "circumstances surrounding the contract signing," "fund flows," and "whether the contract was fulfilled," based on the contents of the complaint.
