Supreme Court Chief Kim Myung-soo’s Leadership Crisis
Judicial Nongdan’s cotton bat is consistent with discipline
From the transcripts of Seong-geun Lim to the excommunication of lies
Concerns that “the reform engine in the court will be cut off”
Chief Justice Kim Myung-soo is on the morning of the 5th to work at the Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul. yunhap news
The transcript of the dialogue between Supreme Court Chief Kim Myung-soo and Busan High Court Chief Judge Im Seong-geun is spreading to the leadership problem of Chief Justice Kim, who declared himself the right person for judicial reform. Criticism is also fierce for the inappropriateness of the dialogue, which seems to be noticed by the political world. It is analyzed that, both inside and outside the legal profession, the liquidation of the judicial farming situation has been sluggish for more than three years since the inauguration of Supreme Court Chief Kim, and disappointment at the fact that the key agendas for judicial reform promised at the time of inauguration are actually stepping in place. .
“Repeatedly delaying responsibility to the National Assembly”
When the judges heard the conversation between Chief Justice Kim and Judge Lim, which was released on the 4th, they pointed out that Chief Justice Kim was irresponsible. It is assessed that Chief Justice Kim seems to have focused on avoiding the situation without a willingness to actively resolve the situation in the judiciary as the head of the judiciary. A typical example is that Supreme Court Chief Kim said, “What would you hear from the National Assembly if I had accepted the resignation?” Cha Jin-ah, a professor at the Graduate School of Law at Korea University, pointed out on the 5th that “The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who was advocating to reform the side effects of abuse of the judicial administration authority, was a sign of the political world.” As the head of the judiciary, the criticism of the undermining of the independence of the judiciary was caused by the refusal to accept the resignation by mentioning’impeachment’ for political influence without worrying about the responsibility of the judges involved in the judiciary. After taking office, Chief Justice Kim conducted two investigations on the facts of the Judiciary Nongdan, and in November 2018, at the National Judges’ Delegation Meeting, the judges themselves decided to “review the impeachment proceedings.” Chief Justice Kim was supported by the chief judges who led the National Judge Delegation Meeting at the time. However, there was nothing that could be said of the results that Supreme Court Chief Kim later drew. There was virtually no separation of responsibility for the findings of the investigation and follow-up to the official opinions of judges. The disciplinary action of judges involved in the judicial nongdan also took the time until the disciplinary prescription expired, and only referred 10 judges to the disciplinary committee. Even that, there was no honesty for up to one year, and was criticized for being only a six-month disciplinary action for honesty.
material photo” alt=”The’Supreme Court Justice Nongdan Condemning Lawyer Press Conference’ was held in front of the alumni of the Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul in June 2018, and lawyers such as law professors, jurists, and lawyers condemned former Supreme Court Chief Yang Seung-tae, who failed to protect the independence of the judiciary. The’Supreme Court Justice Nongdan Condemning Lawyer Press Conference’ was held in front of the alumni of the Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul in June 2018, and lawyers such as law professors, jurists, and lawyers condemned former Supreme Court Chief Yang Seung-tae, who failed to protect the independence of the judiciary. <한겨레> Material photo
A vice-president judge of the Metropolitan Court said, “At the judiciary’s delegation meeting, the judges (reviewed the impeachment proceedings) gave an opinion, and the Chief Justice should have tried to resolve (Judge Nongdan) through the court’s midnight efforts. However, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court did not take any follow-up measures and was not responsible as a leader.” An attorney in Seocho-dong also said, “If the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court actively disciplined, it would have created an atmosphere that the infringement of the independence of the trial set by the Constitution would be severe, even if criminal punishment was not possible. It gave the wrong signal to the entire court.” Another attorney who works as a civic group said, “(Even if the vice-president judge is rejecting the resignation), it seems that he did not want to create a variable due to the resignation acceptance in order to manage the situation. The criticism of the Supreme Court’s dialogue reflects the lukewarm treatment of the entire judicial farming group.” It is pointed out that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court showed the attitude of handing over the follow-up measures to the National Assembly after minimizing the responsibilities at the court level. There are also criticisms that the will and philosophy of judicial reform have not been clearly revealed in the steps taken by the Supreme Court over the past three years, as well as the follow-up measures of the judicial farm. A deputy judge of the High Court said, “There is not much that has changed in the judicial administration or the court administration. (President of the Supreme Court) emphasized a good trial, but the transparency of the trial or the credibility of the court does not seem to have increased.” A lawyer who used to be a judge said, “Apart from the impeachment of the judge, the court’s own reform tasks are piled up like a pile of reforms. I don’t want anyone to blame and take responsibility, so both personnel and institutional reforms ended in compromise. So you don’t feel the change.”
“The judicial reform should not be blurred”
However, there is also an opinion that this incident should not undermine the legitimacy of the judicial reform that formed consensus with the Judicial Nongshim. There is also a concern that an external offensive that discusses the theory of impeachment and resignation of Supreme Court Chief Kim may cover the entire discussion of necessary institutional legal reform and internal court reform. A judge in the district court said, “The importance of the discussion on impeachment and the remarks of Supreme Court Chief Kim are separate issues. The claim that the impeachment violates the independence of judges is also not valid.” Another deputy judge said, “Even if it is insufficient, there is a current of judicial reforms promoted by the Supreme Court. (With this controversy) I am concerned that the momentum for promoting judicial reform in the court may be turned off.” In an article posted on the court’s internal network the previous day, Judge Jeong Uk-do said, “I am concerned about today’s situation in which the practice of criticizing the political perspective on pursuing the right according to law and common sense shakes the independence of the judiciary. ”Said the public position. He continued, “I think that it is not the two (Kim Myung-soo and Lim Seong-geun) who do politics, but the outside political forces that want to influence the courts by defining people who seem to be not on my side as enemies.” “Impeachment and criticism are also normal political processes. “It is one of the members of the law and is guaranteed by the constitution, but I hope that even members of the judiciary will not engage in unreasonable politicization from outside and engage in self-repression.” By Jang Ye-ji and Shin Min-jeong, staff reporter [email protected]