Kim Myung-soo reform of’you can change liquor’ raises court infight

A bill of impeachment proceedings against the incumbent judge passed the National Assembly. In the midst of that, the Supreme Court Chief’s “false explanation” was revealed. The opposition party demanded the voluntary resignation of the “Liar Chief Justice” (Chairman Kim Jong-in, the power of the people). The cracks inside the court are also intensifying. What is at the root of this colostrum? Why did President Moon Jae-in appoint Supreme Court Chief Kim Myung-soo, and what was Chief Justice Kim Myung-soo trying to do?

After the inauguration of the Moon Jae-in administration in 2017, there were two leading candidates in the process of election of the Supreme Court. Former Justice Park Si-hwan and Jeon Soo-an (the title omitted). They were progressive justices who were called’five eagles’ during the days of Supreme Court Chief Yong-hoon Lee.

Around that time, Park Si-hwan had an evening meeting with former Supreme Court Justice Kim Ji-hyung. Participants ordered, “Please take the lead of the Supreme Court and fulfill your responsibilities.” Park Si-hwan shed tears while striking his hands. “I don’t have the right to pursue happiness, too.” The next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, succeeding Chief Justice Yang Seung-tae, was the place where the pain was predicted. In order to clear up the’judicial nongdan’, that is, the abuse of the judicial administration, there was no choice but to put blood on his hands.

At that time, there was a person who appeared surprised after breaking expectations. Myung-soo Kim, Chief of Chuncheon District Court. Compared with the two chief justices, the number of the Judicial Research and Training Institute skipped 13 times. It was the first time that a candidate for the Chief Justice was nominated among non-Judges. Inside and outside the court, an analysis came out saying, “The president’s will to renew the aspect of the judiciary through a non-mainstream card called Kim Myung-soo.”

Blue House pays attention to Kim Myung-soo’s clarity

Myung-soo Kim served as the president of the Korean Law Research Association and the first president of the International Human Rights Law Research Association. However, the stage where he received the spotlight in earnest was the National Court Chiefs Meeting held in March 2017. In a situation where suspicion of abuse of the judicial administration has just emerged, Kim Myung-soo urged a more intense investigation of the truth than anyone else. His sharp attitude deserved the attention of the Blue House, who was looking for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Kim Myung-soo visited the Supreme Court the next day (August 22), who was nominated for the Supreme Court presidential candidate, and made a presentation. “I will show you the level of the person who has only tried with the parties in the trial court for 31 years and 5 months.” He emphasized that he was a different person from the existing’judicial officials’ who were hovering around the administration. He declared a’leadership shift’ at the inauguration ceremony in September of the same year.

“Today and tomorrow’s judiciary is facing a shift not from vertical and rigid bureaucratic leadership to democratic leadership based on listening, communication and consensus.”

Kim Myung-soo’s diagnosis of the cause was not wrong. The’Judongnongdan’ incident was a tragedy caused by the bureaucracy, which took root and branched out in the courthouse. Purpose and efficiency were emphasized under the pretext of’we have to defend weak courts’. The elite of administrative offices who were faithful to the organizational logic rather than the front-line court judges who only performed trials took the positions of the Supreme Court Justice. As a result, the important value of’independence of trial’ had to be pushed to the back.

The problem was in the solution of’just change the main stream’. At the request of the Supreme Court, the Korean Law Research Association, Minbyun, and the International Human Rights Law Research Group entered the Supreme Court one after another. There was an inevitable aspect in that it was necessary to diversify the composition of the Supreme Court, which was conservative in the days of Yang Seung-Tae Court (court). However, the headwind of “Do only those from certain groups with a tendency to progress become the Supreme Court Justices?”

In the midst of this, as the truth about the’Judongnongdan’ continued, the sentiment of opposition from one side of the court intensified. Existing mainstream judges had to undergo three Supreme Court-level investigations followed by prosecution investigations. In the process, Kim Myung-soo did not show responsibility for organizing. After collecting opinions and investigating, when the outlines were drawn, I tried to sign the final sign.

During the last 3rd investigation, he was not informed of the progress, saying, “I will delegate all authority to the special investigation team.” Shortly before the Supreme Court’s report was released, the results were reported to the judges, and the message to the judges went out in two directions. “It is not a matter to be investigated.” (Ahn Cheol-sang, Director of Special Investigations) “I will examine the possibility of an investigation.” (Supreme Court Kim) The aftereffects only deepened. While the Seoul High Court Deputy Judges’ Meeting and the Court Chiefs’ Meeting opposed the accusation and request for investigation, the National Judges’ Delegation called for’investigation of facts without sanctuary including criminal proceedings’.

A statement by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court came out without distinguishing between the case to be revealed by investigation and the case to be responded by severe disciplinary action. “If the investigation proceeds, we will cooperate.” Accordingly, all discussions were engulfed in a single investigation by the prosecution. The volume of internal conflicts increased further as the settlement of the judicial farm incident was narrowed down to human liquidation.

It was the limit of reform, oriented only to’changing the mainstream’. For a system to change, it must not stop at changing people. The timing of policy implementation must not be missed. Existing liquor should also be allowed to subdue. Thus, reform succeeds when organizational culture and perceptions change. No reform will succeed without an overall blueprint and sophisticated program.

Kim Myung-soo had only vague thoughts that if the mainstream of the courts were replaced and their bases removed, they would become a’good judiciary’. Isn’t a’good judge’ and a’good chief justice’ different? What is clear is that behind Kim Myung-soo is President Moon, who regarded him as the’prepared chief of the Supreme Court’.

“Supreme Court Composition Bias” Headwind

What time was on May 22 last year when Kim Myung-soo interviewed with Senior Judge Im Seong-geun? It was when the ruling party won overwhelming victory in the April 15 general election, and the opening of the’Women’s University Yaso’ National Assembly. “It is unconstitutional, but it is innocent.” Im Seong-geun would have been anxious at the situation where the first trial decision was issued and the resignation was not accepted. The reason he recorded the interview was probably because of his disbelief in the Chief Justice. Im Seong-geun’s recording wasn’t perfect, but Kim Myung-soo’s speech was no different.

“I’m installing something like that right now (at the ruling party) to impeach it, but if I resigned my resignation, what would the National Assembly hear?”

If you listen to the sound of your remarks that are close to deviating from the fluid, you will doubt whether the speaker is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Wouldn’t it not be right to open up the principle of “an issue that must go through an impeachment trial”. The recorded files testify that Kim Myung-soo is responsible for the incident.

Then, how will the situation unfold now? Following the impeachment of an incumbent judge, the Supreme Court chief’s lie is excommunicated, raising concerns over whether the court’s infighting is going to the stage of death decision. It’s not the judges that matter. It is a people. If the court breaks and the judges are upset, the damage is bound to go to the people intact. Judges are waiting for the Chief Justice’s choice.

Kwon Seok-cheon JoongAng Ilbo columnist [email protected]