President Lee Jae-myung on the 28th did not submit to the National Assembly the request for consent to appoint Son Bong-gi, a senior judge at the Daegu District Court, who was nominated to succeed former Supreme Court justice Roh Tae-ak, and asked Chief Justice Jo Hee-de to re-recommend a different candidate. In effect, the chief justice's nomination of a Supreme Court justice was "sent back."
The reasons were that there had been no prior consultation between the Supreme Court and the presidential office, and that the chief justice broke the custom of meeting the president for an in-person nomination and instead submitted it in writing. From the ruling camp, there has been strong pushback since Chief Justice Jo nominated Senior Judge Son, arguing it infringed on the president's appointment authority.
◇ Chief Justice Jo Hee-de "Reviewing the details"
In legal circles, some say the president's request to re-recommend a Supreme Court justice infringes on the chief justice's nomination authority. Article 104 of the Constitution stipulates, "Supreme Court justices are appointed by the president with the consent of the National Assembly upon nomination by the chief justice."
Because the pool of Supreme Court candidates has been narrowed to four, if the president keeps asking for re-recommendations until the person he wants is nominated, it ultimately infringes on the chief justice's nomination authority, they say. For this reason, some also view that Chief Justice Jo could file a competence dispute with the Constitutional Court.
Meeting reporters on the way home that day, Chief Justice Jo, asked about next steps, said, "We are reviewing the details. Once things are finalized next week, we will officially let you know."
◇ Rhee Syng-man rejected a chief justice candidate nominated by the judges' conference and demanded a specific individual
It is highly unusual for conflict between the president and the chief justice over nominating a Supreme Court justice to run in parallel and spill into the open. That is why past cases are drawing attention. Some say this case involving the president resembles that of former President Rhee Syng-man in the 1950s. Former Presidents Roh Moo-hyun and Lee Myung-bak also had conflicts, but are assessed to have respected the chief justice's authority to nominate Supreme Court justices.
According to attorney Jeong Ji-woong, the citizens' legislation committee chair at the Citizens' Coalition for Economic Justice (CCEJ), when the first Chief Justice Kim Byeong-ro retired in Dec. 1957, the judges' conference, under the then Court Organization Act, nominated former Supreme Court justice Kim Dong-hyeon as the next chief justice.
President Rhee Syng-man did not accept this and asked the judges' conference to nominate attorney Lee U-ik, then the Liberty Party's North Gyeongsang Provincial Party chair, as a Supreme Court justice. Lee took office as Minister of the Ministry of Justice in May 1950 and served for six months.
The judges' conference rejected former President Rhee Syng-man's demand, and Liberty Party lawmakers sought to amend the Court Organization Act to delete the judges' conference's authority to nominate the chief justice. The attempt failed amid opposition from various sectors, and former Chief Justice Kim Byeong-ro actively worked to build public opposition.
Former President Rhee Syng-man no longer demanded the appointment of a specific person. The judges' conference later nominated former Minister of the Ministry of Justice Jo Yong-sun as a candidate for chief justice, and he was appointed the second chief justice.
Former President Roh Moo-hyun also clashed in 2003 with then-Chief Justice Choi Jong-young over nominating Supreme Court justices. The presidential office indicated that the president could refuse to appoint the candidates presented by Choi, citing "reform-mindedness," among other reasons. However, former Chief Justice Choi nominated former Supreme Court justice Kim Yong-dam from his initial list, and former President Roh ultimately accepted.
Former President Lee Myung-bak and progressive-leaning Chief Justice Lee Yong-hoon also clashed in 2009 over nominating Supreme Court justices. At the time, Chief Justice Lee Yong-hoon protested, saying, "For the chief justice to take exactly what the presidential office demands could affect the chief justice's nomination authority and, further, the independence of the judiciary." The nomination was delayed for about half a month then as well, but the conflict was settled.
◇ Yoon–Kim Myeong-su conflict was resolved by "excluding unwanted candidates"… this time it is about a "wanted candidate"
Former President Yoon Suk-yeol also clashed in 2023 with progressive-leaning Chief Justice Kim Myeong-su over nominating Supreme Court justices. The presidential office took issue with certain candidates' political leanings, and former Chief Justice Kim Myeong-su did not nominate those the presidential office did not want.
The difference between the conflict involving the president and Chief Justice Jo and that case is that there is a "specific candidate wanted by the presidential office." In Jan. this year, the Supreme Court Justice Candidate Recommendation Committee recommended four people to succeed former justice Roh: Kim Min-gi and Park Sun-young, appellate judges at the Seoul High Court; Son Bong-gi, a senior judge at the Daegu District Court; and Yun Seong-sik, a senior judge at the Seoul High Court.
Among them, appellate judge Kim Min-gi, reportedly preferred by the presidential office, drew criticism in legal circles as unfit to become a Supreme Court justice because her husband is Constitutional Court justice Oh Young-jun, appointed by the president. They say the controversy could grow because with the petition-for-trial system in effect, the Constitutional Court can overturn Supreme Court rulings.
Judge Kim, while at the Suwon High Court, served as an associate judge on the panel that overturned the lower court's prison sentences and acquitted both Kim Man-bae, major shareholder of Hwacheon Daeyu, and Choi Yun-gil, former chair of the Seongnam City Council, in a bribery case tied to the Daejang-dong development project.