Judiciary Committee Demands Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae Appear; Opposition Backs 10 Votes

A motion demanding Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae appear before the National Assembly was passed at the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee, led by the Democratic Party. It was passed at a plenary meeting on the 19th with 10 votes in favor and 4 against out of 14 attending members. The committee's plenary session was held at the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul. Democratic Party Committee Chairman Seo Young-kyo requested Chief Justice Cho's attendance based on Article 121 of the National Assembly Act.

Chief Justice Cho submitted written nominations to President Lee Jae-myung on the previous day, recommending Judge Son Bong-ki, chief judge of the Daegu District Court, to succeed former Supreme Court Justice Roh Tae-ak, and Judge Kim Sung-soo, chief judge of the Seoul High Court, to succeed Supreme Court Justice Lee Heung-koo.

Committee members from the Democratic Party, the Rebuilding Korea Party, and the Progressive Party condemned the delay in nominating Supreme Court Justices as dereliction of duty, arguing that the damage ultimately fell on the public. They pointed out that Chief Justice Cho notified the President in writing on the 18th, the day before the committee meeting, without prior consultation, asking whether this was a shirking of constitutional duties and demanding an explanation of the circumstances surrounding the nomination. Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Yong-min argued that the nomination of Supreme Court Justices is an administrative act, not a judicial trial, noting that while the Chief Justice had previously refused to attend citing ongoing trials, he no longer had a pretext to do so.

In response, the People Power Party counter-argued that the Presidential Office had abused its authority by interfering in the nomination process beforehand, and was now shifting the blame onto the Chief Justice for exercising his legitimate right to nominate. People Power Party lawmaker Ju Jin-woo, a member of the Judiciary Committee, expressed his opposition to the handling of the attendance demand motion during the meeting.

The conflict has led to a clash between the judiciary, the executive branch, and the legislature over the Supreme Court Justice appointment process. The ruling and opposition parties are engaged in a war of words over whether the prolonged vacancy has caused disruptions to the normal operation of the judiciary.