'Three Issues Raised by the Presidential Office in Refusing Cho Heedai’s Nomination—First Since Syngman Rhee'

Presidential Office Requests Renomination of Son Bonggi as Supreme Court Justice Candidate
Presidential Office Raises Issues: "Unilateral Nomination Without Consultation, Disrupted Recommendation Process, and Lack of Supreme Court Diversity"
"Unilateral Notification Without Consultation...Undermining Trust in Appointment Process"
"Supreme Court Diversity Does Not Meet Public Expectations"
"Nomination Authority Should Support Proper Exercise of Appointment Power"
Renomination of Existing Candidates or Complete Reconsideration?

The presidential office entered a new phase of conflict over the appointment of Supreme Court justices on August 28 by refusing to submit the nomination consent for Supreme Court Justice candidate Son Bonggi to the National Assembly and requesting that Chief Justice Cho Heedai renominate a candidate. It is the first time in about 69 years that a president has refused the judiciary's nomination for appointment, since former President Syngman Rhee rejected the nomination of former Justice Kim Donghyun as chief justice, which was recommended by the Judicial Conference in December 1957. This comes just ten days after Chief Justice Cho submitted Son's nomination in writing without prior agreement with the presidential office on August 18.

The presidential office highlighted three major issues with the nomination of Son Bonggi. These are the unilateral nomination without substantive consultation, the controversy over the fairness of the candidate recommendation process, and concerns over the diversity of the Supreme Court's composition. While the official reasoning focused on procedural 'process,' the presidential office is in effect raising issues with both personnel management at the court and the 'substance' of Son's nomination.

Chief Justice Hoidae Cho is speaking at the luncheon meeting inviting key figures from the five branches held at the Yongsan Presidential Office on December 3, 2025, attended by President Jae-myung Lee. Photo by Yonhap News

Written nomination after seven months...Presidential office: "Unilateral notice without consultation"

The presidential office's strongest objection was the lack of prior consultation. Article 104, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution states: "Supreme Court justices shall be appointed by the president with the consent of the National Assembly, upon the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court." This structure grants the right to recommend to the chief justice, the right to consent to the National Assembly, and the appointment authority to the president, each as a separate power. The presidential office interprets the chief justice's recommendation authority as supplementary to the appointment authority. Principal spokesperson Kang Yoojung stated, "The recommendation authority is not a power that substitutes for or nullifies the power to appoint, but rather a power to ensure the appointment authority is exercised properly."

The presidential office also emphasized the constitutional significance of the practice throughout history, where presidents and chief justices have met in advance to coordinate before nominations are made. Such practice was not merely a matter of protocol or convenience, but served as a safeguard against the Supreme Court being composed solely at the discretion of one side. This time, however, the presidential office judged that the safeguard failed to function. In reality, four candidates had been recommended on January 21 for the replacement of former Justice Noh Taeak, but Chief Justice Cho did not submit a nomination for nearly seven months. Then, on August 18, without final consultation with the presidential office, he submitted Son's nomination in writing.

Spokesperson Kang emphasized, "The judiciary disregarding the established practice of prior consultation between the president and the chief justice is an act that undermines the very foundation upon which judicial independence has been sustained."

Contacting recommended candidates again...“Undermining trust in the personnel process”

The presidential office also found problems with the fairness of procedures following the Supreme Court Justice Candidate Recommendation Committee's recommendations. According to the presidential office, prior to Son's nomination, the court administration contacted candidates individually, who were already recommended by the committee, to inquire about the possibility of repeating the recommendation process. Article 41-2 of the Court Organization Act stipulates that the recommendation committee must recommend at least three times as many candidates as positions to be filled, and the chief justice must respect the committee's recommendations when submitting nominations.

The core of the presidential office's concern is that asking already validly recommended candidates if they are willing to repeat the recommendation process could undermine the legitimacy of the existing results. Spokesperson Kang said, "Approaching the candidates to discuss excluding those who have already been rightfully recommended from nomination consideration undermines confidence in the fairness of the personnel process."

"Does it meet Supreme Court diversity?"...Issues raised with the content of Son Bonggi's nomination

Cho Heedai, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, is arriving at the Supreme Court building in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the 19th. On the 18th, Chief Justice Cho recommended to President Lee Jae-myung the appointment of Son Bonggi, chief judge of Daegu District Court, and Kim Seongsu, chief judge of Seoul High Court, as successors to former Justice No Taeak and Justice Lee Heunggu. August 19, 2026, Yonhap News Photo by Yonhap

The presidential office further raised issues not just about procedure but substance, arguing that the nomination of Son does not meet longstanding demands from both the public and legal community for greater diversity among Supreme Court justices. Spokesperson Kang argued, "The diversification of the Supreme Court has been a consistent demand from citizens and the legal community so that the highest court may reflect a broad spectrum of voices in our society. Given that the Supreme Court's fundamental purpose is to protect the rights of minorities and the socially disadvantaged, and to guarantee citizens' right to trial, it is doubtful whether Son's nomination meets the public’s call for greater diversity on the bench."

Kang further stated, "The chief justice's nomination authority is not an absolute power but should be exercised in a way that respects the president's substantive authority to appoint, which is prescribed by the Constitution. The request for renomination is not intended to limit the chief justice's recommendation authority; rather, it is an unavoidable step to ensure nominations occur on a foundation of mutual respect among the constitutional bodies, as a form of checks and balances that the Constitution intends."

Time again for Cho Heedai...Will he pick from the existing three or form a new committee?

As the presidential office has requested that Chief Justice Cho renominate a candidate for the vacancy created by former Justice Noh Taeak's departure, the ball is in Cho's court once again. The fastest process would be to nominate one of the remaining candidates from the four who were recommended by the Supreme Court Justice Candidate Recommendation Committee in January, excluding Son. Those candidates included Kim Mingi and Park Sunyoung (judges at Seoul High Court) and Yoon Seongsik (presiding judge at Seoul High Court). In this case, the chief justice could coordinate with the presidential office and quickly reach common ground to resume the appointment process.

Alternatively, Chief Justice Cho could convene a new recommendation committee and start the process from scratch. Under the Court Organization Act, the committee is considered dissolved once it has made its recommendations, so restarting the process is an available option. In 2012, when Supreme Court Justice candidate Kim Byeonghwa voluntarily withdrew, the Supreme Court convened a new recommendation committee and proceeded with appointing a replacement; at that time, it took about a month and a half to recommend a new candidate.

Spokesperson Kang requested, "Please respect the recommendations of the Supreme Court Justice Candidate Recommendation Committee and proceed with the renomination process as swiftly as possible." The statement implies that, rather than investing a lengthy period in forming a new committee, greater weight should be placed on quickly nominating a new candidate based on the existing recommendations.

Representative Minseok Kim and other members of the Democratic Party of Korea are shouting slogans demanding the resignation of Chief Justice Hoidae Cho at the party meeting held at the National Assembly on August 20, 2026. Photo by Hyunmin Kim

Meanwhile, if the dispute prolongs due to the presidential office’s latest decision, the resulting damage could be a prolonged vacancy on the Supreme Court bench. Former Justice Noh's seat has already been vacant for over five months since his retirement in March. However, since the presidential office has decided to submit the consent request for Kim Seongsu, candidate to replace Justice Lee Heunggu, to the National Assembly on this day, the possibility of both positions remaining vacant at the same time has temporarily been reduced.

Candidate Kim will now undergo a personnel hearing by the National Assembly’s Special Committee on Personnel Hearings, followed by a consent vote in the full assembly. According to the Personnel Hearing Act, the National Assembly must conclude its deliberation within 20 days from the day the consent request is submitted. The confirmation of a Supreme Court justice requires the attendance of more than half of the total members and consent from more than half of those present. If the National Assembly consents, President Lee will finalize the appointment.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.