A sitting court strongly criticized the petition for review of judgments that the ruling party is pushing. It said the petition would in effect function as a fourth instance, leading to trial delays and paralysis of the judicial system.
According to legal sources on the 15th, Presiding Judge Mo Seong-jun (Judicial Research and Training Institute class 32), a professor at the Judicial Research and Training Institute, pointed this out in a post titled "Thoughts on the debate over the petition for review of judgments" on the court's internal bulletin board (CourtNet) the previous day. The petition for review of judgments is a system that makes even Supreme Court trials subject to constitutional complaints. The Constitutional Court says it supports the petition, saying "the judiciary must also be bound by fundamental rights," but the Supreme Court opposes it, saying "it is an appeal against a three-instance Supreme Court ruling, so it effectively becomes a fourth instance."
Presiding Judge Mo noted, "In the Joseon era, not only the central ministries of the Ministry of Punishments, the Ministry of Taxation, and Hanseong Prefecture, but also provincial governors and county magistrates had judicial authority, but jurisdictional boundaries were unclear, so it was commonplace for commoners to go from one office to another seeking judgments on the same case," adding, "In particular, whenever a local magistrate was replaced, those who lost in previous trials would bring their cases again claiming injustice, and this 'endless refusal to accept judgments' became a chronic social problem."
He continued, "On top of a culture in which commoners did not accept trial outcomes, turf battles between offices and frequent intervention by higher bodies intensified prolonged litigation in which rulings failed to be finalized and drifted, pushing aside truly urgent and important disputes," adding, "To handle the flood of cases, magistrates, even in civil matters, administered beatings to force closure, and the king repeatedly proclaimed laws limiting the number of trials, but these measures had little effect."
He went on, "Joseon, which was a 'litigation hell' from which no one could escape, vividly proves how powerless a judicial system becomes when limited judicial resources combine with the normalization of refusal to accept rulings," adding, "The current debate over the petition for review of judgments outwardly claims to protect citizens' fundamental rights, but in substance it will recreate, in a modern version, Joseon's history of 'repeated lawsuits' and 'refusal to accept' by leaving open a path for parties who cannot accept judgments to return to square one at any time."
He also said, "The current debate (on the petition for review of judgments) leans toward a 'power-structure approach' in which the Constitutional Court, an external body, would control the courts that exercise judicial power, rather than measures to enhance the persuasiveness of trials and acceptance rates," calling the bill on the petition "an attempt to turn the Constitutional Court into the de facto highest court."
Presiding Judge Mo said, "The way to end the 'never-ending trials' that seemed impossible to resolve in the Joseon era was none other than concentrating judicial authority in the judiciary and completing a three-instance system with the Supreme Court as the highest court," adding, "The legislative push for the petition for review of judgments, which plainly violates the Constitution, offers no real benefit, and will clearly usher in a 'litigation hell' that only adds to the public's pain, should be reconsidered, and it is time to return to substantive discussions for solid, efficient improvements to the judicial system."
The National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee held a full meeting on the 11th and, led by the Democratic Party of Korea, passed the bills on the petition for review of judgments and on increasing the number of Supreme Court justices.