Court presidents nationwide expressed serious regret over the Democratic Party of Korea's rush to pass three judicial reform bills through the National Assembly plenary session.
The court chiefs determined that sufficient deliberation through a consultative body involving relevant institutions and experts—including courts, the Constitutional Court, the National Assembly, and the government—is necessary, given that judicial system reform directly affects citizens' lives, rights remedies, and legal stability.
This is interpreted as a commitment to protect the rule of law by preventing harm to citizens and the nation from potential collapse of the judicial system, and avoiding side effects of institutional reform without adequate discussion—rather than protecting the judiciary's vested interests.
However, opinions were presented that rapidly increasing the number of Supreme Court justices in a short period could cause side effects such as weakened fact-finding trials, suggesting an initial increase of four justices with a phased approach.
The Supreme Court urgently convened a nationwide court presidents' meeting on November 25 at the Supreme Court building in Seocho-gu, Seoul, with presidents of high courts and district courts attending to officially discuss response strategies to the bills. The meeting was attended by 43 participants including Park Young-jae, Director of the National Court Administration, Ki Woo-jong, Deputy Director, and court presidents nationwide. The meeting began at 2 p.m. and continued until 6:45 p.m.
The court presidents who gathered that day opposed the legislative approach for the three judicial reform bills. They stated: "We express serious regret over the current situation where bills that could bring fundamental changes to the judicial system and significantly impact citizens' lives have been submitted to the National Assembly plenary session without sufficient public debate and deliberation on potential side effects of institutional reform, despite concerns expressed by the judiciary and various sectors of society."
The court presidents particularly strongly opposed the introduction of the "judicial distortion crime." They argued that even considering the amended bill, the crime's elements remain abstract, potentially leading to excessive expansion of punishment scope, and expressing concerns about serious side effects including abuse of accusations and complaints due to the penalty provisions. The court presidents said: "There are concerns this could produce results that run counter to swift trials and protection of citizens' fundamental rights."
The court presidents expressed concern that introducing the court ruling appeal system could cause harm to citizens by substantially delaying finalization of trials. They argued that litigants would suffer from repeated trials and social losses from legal instability are expected.
While the court presidents agreed on the necessity of increasing the number of Supreme Court justices, they pointed out that a substantial increase in a short period could lead to side effects such as weakened fact-finding trials, resulting in harm to citizens. The majority opinion was that it would be desirable to first pursue an increase of four justices—the feasible range at present—while examining impacts on fact-finding trials and potential harm to citizens, and continuing to discuss additional increases.
The court presidents again emphasized the need for sufficient public deliberation. They stated: "Fundamental reform of the judicial system could cause serious side effects that are difficult to reverse," adding that "it is necessary to conduct broad and in-depth discussions on desirable judicial system reform measures through a consultative body encompassing various institutions and experts."
