After Judge Pushes Back, Court Administration Office Admits 'Erroneous Notification' of Reappointment Review
Seoul Central District Court Judge Hur Yong-gu, who ordered a prosecutor removed from the courtroom in the Seongnam FC sponsorship trial, protested after receiving notice that he would face a reappointment review — and the National Court Administration has confirmed that on the same day it called him to admit it had given him erroneous grounds for the decision.
In November two years ago, while presiding over the Seongnam FC sponsorship scandal trial, Judge Hur ordered a prosecutor, who appeared as a duty stand-in for a single day, to leave the courtroom. On the court's internal network, CourtNet, he posted a statement and explanatory documents after learning he would be subject to a reappointment review by the Judges Personnel Committee.
The stated grounds were that his conduct made it "significantly difficult to maintain the dignity required of a judge," rendering him unfit for reappointment. Judge Hur countered: "I have never violated my duty to maintain judicial dignity, nor have I committed any act constituting grounds for discipline." He added, "If I had engaged in misconduct or violated my duty to maintain dignity, would the prosecutorial authority of the Yoon Suk-yeol government have simply let it slide?"
On the same day his statement became public and the case sparked widespread attention, the National Court Administration's relevant department called Judge Hur to explain that there had been an error in the notification document, and that a staff member had mistakenly written the wrong grounds. The stated reason, they said, was not difficulty maintaining dignity as originally notified, but rather poor work performance — meaning the legal provisions had been mis-cited in the notice, not that the grounds were changed after the fact.
Judge Hur again posted on CourtNet, questioning whether such a significant matter — one that could cost him his judgeship — could really be attributed to a simple mistake. Critics pointed out that guaranteeing judicial status is at the heart of judicial independence, yet the court administration had erred from the very stage of notifying the judge of the grounds for his reappointment review.
