People Power Party presses the pension fund for minutes on its January rebalancing suspension

Both parties' accounts rest on the same rebalancing rule and split on what it was for. Under the fund's asset allocation guidelines, a rise in domestic share prices that pushes equity holdings above target obliges the NPS to adjust them ^[3]. Rep. Lee In-young of the Democratic Party said: "The National Pension Service did not prop up the market by buying stocks. Rebalancing came up for discussion because the value of the stocks it had already purchased went up." ^[11] The People Power Party's claim concerns the sales that were deferred. It argues that pressure to sell domestic stocks eased after the fund management committee suspended rebalancing in January ^[2].

Rep. Baek Jong-heon says the record is sealed. "The suspension of rebalancing was approved by the fund management committee in January this year, but the committee also resolved to withhold the minutes until 2030," he said ^[5]. Counting from January 2026, that is a seal of about four years ^[18]. Baek added: "Under the National Pension Act, however, the minutes can be submitted if the relevant standing committee of the National Assembly requests them." ^[6] Chairman Kim Sung-joo pointed to the law's origin: "The rules on disclosing the minutes are a law created under the Park Geun-hye administration." ^[10]

The chairman's defence is that the call was ordinary. "If you go back to the market conditions in January and May, there were experts recommended under the Yoon Suk-yeol administration as well, and there was no objection to suspending rebalancing," he said. Then he gave the reason: "That was because we took an optimistic view of the Korean stock market." ^[8] An optimistic view is a forecast. A target-weight rule is written to apply whichever way the forecast points.

We think the allegation, as aired at the audit, is a claim about intent that nothing public yet tests. The January suspension itself is not in dispute, since the chairman defends it as reasonable given market conditions ^[7]. The election motive rests on the party's suspicion ^[19] set against the chairman's statement: "I have never experienced a case in which the government's requests simply passed through as they were." ^[9] The counter-case is Rep. Lee Dal-hee's: "Not a single person would consider it independent of political power, given how the NPS chairman responds to a single remark from the president by changing investment guidelines." ^[14] If she is right, evidence of motive exists outside the January minutes. If the minutes show only a market view, that would end the allegation. If they show government input, that would make it. If they stay sealed, the opposition escalates to the investigation it has not ruled out ^[4].

The audit report did not disclose the size of the equity overweight or the amount of selling the suspension deferred, so the cost of the delay to the fund cannot be computed from it. Lee In-young's own view is that "It would actually have been better to rebalance before the local elections and make use of the returns." ^[13] The fund, in other words, held shares it was due to sell. Whether that was a gain or a loss depends on prices after January.

The witness request is a separate fight. Baek said the party had repeatedly asked for Kim Yong-beom, the former chief of presidential policy, to be designated but that the Democratic Party never agreed ^[15]. Rep. Seo Young-seok of the Democratic Party said: "The witness request does not fit the purpose of a parliamentary audit, and this is not a matter for our committee to summon a witness and take up separately." ^[16]