Why does Seoul say the North Korean POW transfer should have remained confidential?

South Korea says the two countries agreed to keep the transfer confidential at Kyiv’s request. The dispute centers on whether that confidentiality was a binding shared understanding despite the absence of a signed document.

How has the nondisclosure dispute affected South Korea-Ukraine relations?

Seoul recalled its ambassador to Ukraine in protest over what it called Kyiv’s insufficient response and said it was still waiting for an apology and preventive measures. Ukraine has treated the matter as settled and said diplomacy should prevail in the relationship.

Records prove secrecy premise in POW row despite no signed deal, Seoul says

Q: Did South Korea and Ukraine sign a nondisclosure agreement over the two North Korean POWs?

No formal nondisclosure document was signed. Seoul says both countries nevertheless operated from the beginning under a shared understanding that the entire negotiation would remain confidential, supported by internal meeting records that it has not disclosed.

Listen

Summary

South Korea and Ukraine remain at odds over whether a binding confidentiality understanding governed the transfer of two North Korean prisoners of war, with Seoul saying a secrecy consensus existed from the start and Kyiv denying any official agreement. Seoul acknowledges that no formal nondisclosure document was signed but says internal meeting records support its position. The dispute has intensified after Seoul recalled its ambassador and continued demanding an apology, while Ukraine says the matter is closed.

Key Facts

South Korean officials said Seoul and Kyiv communicated on the basis that the entire negotiation would remain confidential, although no official nondisclosure document was signed.
A Cheong Wa Dae source confirmed there was no written nondisclosure agreement, while a diplomat suggested the negotiations may have involved agencies other than presidents or foreign ministries.
Seoul recalled its ambassador to Ukraine last week and said it was still awaiting an apology and measures to prevent a recurrence.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said the dispute resulted from differing interpretations of confidentiality arrangements during the POW transfer process and considered the matter closed.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced on Sept. 23 that two North Korean POWs had been transferred to South Korea, about 20 months after their capture in Russia’s Kursk region.

By Park Ji-won

Published Oct 13, 2026 4:11 pm KST
Updated Oct 13, 2026 4:31 pm KST

Foreign Minister Cho Hyun, right, shakes hands with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha ahead of their talks at the foreign ministry building in Seoul, June 30. Newsis

South Korea and Ukraine remain at odds over the scope of a "binding" nondisclosure agreement regarding the transfer of two North Korean prisoners of war (POWs), with the dispute now centering on a fine but crucial distinction: Seoul says a consensus on confidentiality existed from the start of negotiations, while Kyiv says no official document of any agreement exists.

South Korean officials acknowledged that no formal nondisclosure agreement was signed, but maintained that both sides had operated from the beginning under a shared understanding that the entire negotiation would remain confidential.

"There is no official document signed by the two sides on nondisclosure," a senior foreign ministry official told The Korea Times. "We have internal documents on the meetings, which we cannot disclose. But Seoul and Kyiv have been communicating based on the consensus that the entire negotiation should remain subject to a binding nondisclosure agreement."

The official added that President Lee Jae Myung’s remarks on the matter “have some grounds” and that Cheong Wa Dae and the foreign ministry “are aligned and share the same understanding.”

A source at Cheong Wa Dae separately confirmed to The Korea Times that there is no written nondisclosure agreement.

Another diplomat shed light on how the gap between the two sides may have emerged.

“Normally, a word-by-word full transcript is documented between presidents or at least the whole meeting will be documented between foreign ministers and senior officials," the diplomat said. "Given that, there is a possibility that one side is not telling the truth or the negotiations were made between other agencies such as spy agencies.”

The standoff has hardened since Seoul recalled its ambassador to Ukraine last week in protest of what it called an “insufficient” response from Kyiv. A foreign ministry official on Tuesday told reporters that Seoul is still waiting for an apology from Kyiv as well as measures to prevent any recurrence.

Ukraine, meanwhile, appears to consider the matter settled.

"We consider the matter closed," Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha was quoted on Monday by RBC Ukraine as saying. Sybiha said the disagreement stemmed from differing interpretations of the confidentiality arrangements at various stages of the POW transfer process, according to the report.

"We have a very promising, mutually beneficial future ahead of us. I believe diplomacy will certainly prevail in our relations, and this episode will be left behind," the Ukrainian foreign minister said.

The Ukrainian Embassy in Seoul did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The dispute was set off by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s announcement during his U.N. General Assembly address on Sept. 23 that two North Korean POWs had been transferred to South Korea — about 20 months after their capture in Russia’s Kursk region. Seoul says the two countries agreed to keep the transfer confidential at Kyiv’s request. Kyiv denies any such agreement existed.

Korea Times reporter Kim Bo-kyoung contributed to this article.

Explore More