![]() |
A 2017 photo of the 15th century manuscript "Hunminjeongeum Haeryebon," a handbook of the Korean writing system Hangeul, provided by book collector Bae Ik-gi in Sangju, North Gyeongsang Province. The collector has demanded 100 billion won ($85 million) from the government for handing it over to the state. Korea Times file |
By Lee Suh-yoon
In a ruling that summed up over 10 years of dispute between the Cultural Heritage Administration (CHA) and a private book collector, the Supreme Court on Monday ordered the collector, Bae Ik-gi, to turn in a priceless 15th century manuscript revealing the origins and workings of the Korean writing system Hangeul.
The manuscript ― dubbed the Hunminjeongeum Haeryebon (commentaries or handbook) ― explains the linguistic principles and components on which Hangeul is built. Hunminjeongeum is the original name of Hangeul. The book was published in 1446 when King Sejong proclaimed the creation of Hangeul to the nation. Before Hangeul, written Korean consisted Chinese characters.
Most copies of the handbook were lost during the 1910-45 Japanese occupation of Korea. Korean translation copies have been around ― now kept at university libraries and culture foundations ― but the first original handbook written in Chinese was found in Andong, North Gyeongsang Province, and revealed to the public only after the Korean War. Now a UNESCO heritage document and National Treasure No. 70, the manuscript is kept at Gansong Art Museum in Seoul.
In July 2008, a second copy was made public by Bae, who claimed he had kept it at this home in Sangju, North Gyeongsang Province. It was in better condition and even included detailed footnotes by scholars at the time.
![]() |
Sangju City officials and council members talk with collector Bae Ik-gi, right in white clothes, to negotiate the return of the Hunminjeongeum manuscript from him, at Sangju City Hall in June this year. / Courtesy of Sangju City |
But the discovery was not celebrated for long. An antique shop owner surnamed Cho sued Bae saying the manuscript was stolen from him. Bae denied the charges, saying he bought the book along with others. The civil case went up to the Supreme Court, which sided with Cho in 2011. But Bae refused to comply and Cho handed over his legal ownership of the text to the CHA shortly before his death in 2012.
The situation became more complicated after the prosecution indicted Bae on charges of violating the law on cultural heritage protection. He was cleared of the criminal charges in 2014 due to a lack of evidence.
Based on the latter ruling, Bae asked the court to ban the CHA from confiscating the manuscript from him. But the rulings by the lower courts and that by the Supreme Court on Monday were against him, saying his acquittal in the criminal case did not recognize his ownership of the text.
Despite the ruling, however, Bae still retains the upper hand. No one knows where Bae hid the manuscript. A police search of his home after the 2011 ruling also failed to recover it.
Bae does not intend on keeping the treasure but demands 100 billion won ($85 million) for its return, saying the manuscript may be worth over 1 trillion won. The CHA has flatly denied the request for payment, saying it already has legal ownership of it.
"The ruling on Monday once again confirmed CHA ownership over the document," CHA official Do Jung-pil told The Korea Times. "If Bae continues to withhold the document, we will take more forceful measures step by step. No financial compensation is possible."
Meanwhile, worries have also surfaced about its storage conditions. In 2015, Bae's house went up in flames, after which Bae revealed to the press a photo of a partly seared manuscript page with the text still visible.
"To store the manuscript in a good environment quickly, this problem needs to be solved soon. But now, after the court ruling, I can't even reveal if I have the book or not,"?Bae said during an interview with local radio station CBS on Tuesday, as he fears if he confirms the manuscript is still in his possession it will be used as evidence against him to search his property again.