Popera tenor Im Hyung-Joo and the exterior of the Seoul Popera House building that he is known to operate. Kyunghyang Shinmun file photo

Amid controversy over unpaid construction costs of around 800 million KRW for the Seoul Popera House owed to a subcontractor, popera tenor Im Hyung-Joo, who had stressed that he was “unrelated to the corporation,” was in fact serving as the representative director of ‘Seoul Popera House’.

It was confirmed on the 4th that in June 2025, Im Hyung-Joo assumed the post of representative director of Seoul Popera House, a company for real estate operation and management, leasing, and performance operation, and remains in office to date.

The company head office address matches the interior of the Seoul Popera House building, where the subcontract nonpayment dispute is located. The official Seoul Popera website also lists Im Hyung-Joo as the representative.

This corporation was established in February 2024 under the name Hannamwon Co., Ltd., and in June last year changed its corporate name to Seoul Popera House Co., Ltd. In the process, it moved its address to the interior of the current Seoul Popera House, and in this process, he shifted from inside director to representative director and completed registration. The auditor role is held by the younger sibling of Im Hyung-Joo, Mr. Im.

The subcontractor won the suit for construction payment against the real estate development company Emblabird in October last year, after Im Hyung-Joo had assumed the post of representative director of Seoul Popera House and of inside director at Emblabird.

Mr. Cho, the representative director of Emblabird, the company bearing the subcontract debt, is listed side by side as an inside director. Mr. Cho originally served as representative director and then handed the representative director position over to Im Hyung-Joo. In effect, the executives of the company that owns the building and those of the company that operates it are composed of the same individuals.

According to materials from DGNcom, the agency of Im Hyung-Joo, from June last year, the building already housed a 124-seat main performance venue, ‘Im Hyung-Joo Hall,’ and a 60-seat multipurpose hall, ‘Sally Garden Theater.’ Im Hyung-Joo himself also appeared on numerous entertainment programs and introduced it as “a four-story, 442-pyeong building I personally built.”

It appears to be a structure in which the subcontract debt of around 800 million KRW is left with the owning company (Emblabird), while the revenues generated from venue rentals and arts business in that building are enjoyed by the operating company (Seoul Popera House), where Im Hyung-Joo serves as representative.

Popera tenor Im Hyung-Joo, who serves as the representative of the operating company, Seoul Popera House. Website capture

Noh Jong-eon, managing attorney (Law Firm Jonjae), pointed out, “If the corporation that owns the building and bears the massive construction-payment debt and the operating company that actually generates revenue from that building have effectively identical executives and real control structure, then legally this should be regarded as a ‘de facto economic single entity’.”

Both corporations are controlled by core executives consisting of the Im siblings and Mr. Cho, so they are effectively operated under the same governance structure. This calls for legal review as to whether there is abuse of corporate personality. There is also considerable possibility of imposing additional legal liabilities under Article 401 of the Commercial Act and the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil.

Representatives for Im Hyung-Joo emphasized a good-faith stance, stating, “Even if we must accept double payment, we will sell the building for 15.2 billion KRW and prioritize repayment of the subcontract debt.”

According to the trust register confirmed by this paper, the building has been transferred under the name of Korea Trust, so a unilateral voluntary sale by Emblabird is impossible; even upon sale, Daol Savings Bank, the first-priority creditor (maximum claim 5.64 billion KRW), would receive priority distribution, rendering the actual share that would go to small subcontractors uncertain.

Attorney Noh said, “Isolating a deteriorated debt in a shell company while separating out only the revenue-generating structure is a matter for which the current operating company should also be held strictly accountable,” adding, “Tax authorities should also conduct a thorough investigation into whether illegal tax evasion or improper internal transactions were carried out in the process of artificially splitting corporations with the same economic substance to transfer profits.”