"Judicial Domination Must Stop"... 84 Members of 14th Training Institute Cohort Openly Criticize President's Rejection of Supreme Court Nominee

14th Class Alumni of Judicial Training Institute Issue Statement on September 2
"President Does Not Have Discretion to Select Nominees... Lack of Prior Consultation Is Not Grounds for Rejection"

A steel fence has been installed in front of the Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, ahead of the Supreme Court verdict on former President Yoon Suk-yeol's "obstruction of arrest" case. July 9, 2026. Photo by Jinhyung Kang

In response to the recent rejection of Supreme Court justice nominees by the president, senior members of the legal community strongly criticized the situation, declaring that "the constitutional order and judicial independence of the Republic of Korea are facing a critical test."

On September 2, a group called "84 Members of the 14th Judicial Training Institute for the Defense of Judicial Independence," chaired by attorney Sung Kimoon and including former high court judge Kang Mingoo among others, issued a statement emphasizing, "No political power should ever infringe upon the independence of the judiciary."

The statement criticized the recent developments in which the president refused to submit to the National Assembly the confirmation bill for a Supreme Court justice nominee recommended by the Chief Justice—citing the lack of prior consultation—as well as the demand for a new recommendation for a different candidate. In the statement, the group argued, "The dispersion of appointment authority for Supreme Court justices is a central mechanism of separation of powers, designed so that no single branch monopolizes the composition of the highest court," adding, "While the president holds the power of appointment, this does not equate to a discretionary right to select the nominee."

The group further clarified that the nomination authority of the Chief Justice is not a subordinate right serving the president’s appointment power, but rather an independent authority granted to ensure judicial independence. In particular, regarding the matter of 'prior consultation,' they noted, "Even if prior consultation has been customary, it is not a constitutional or legal requirement for the validity of a nomination," and warned, "If the president rejects candidates until a preferred individual is nominated, this effectively allows the president to exercise both the nomination and appointment powers."

They also expressed grave concern over recent legislative moves in political circles, such as proposals to establish a presidential right to return nominations. The group stated, "Powers directly granted by the Constitution to the Chief Justice cannot be curtailed by statute," and criticized, "Modifying the law retroactively is not institutional reform, but abuse of legislative power that shakes the balance of power." They added, "Judicial reform is fundamentally different from judicial domination," and stressed, "True reform means ensuring that neither the president nor any political party can arbitrarily control the judiciary."

They announced a set of demands, specifically calling for: ▲The president to cease unwarranted demands for a new nomination without constitutional grounds; ▲The National Assembly to end legislative efforts to curtail the Chief Justice's nomination authority; ▲Political parties on both sides to stop politicizing the appointment of Supreme Court justices.

The group also demanded a firm response from the Chief Justice. They urged, "The Chief Justice must uphold judicial independence without yielding to political pressure. If a rejection lacks constitutionally valid grounds or if no grounds are given, this should be publicly announced, and any demand for a new nomination should be declined." They warned again, "If the boundaries of the Constitution are breached to secure the appointment of a single Supreme Court justice, what is lost is the independence of the judiciary, the principle of separation of powers, and public trust in the rule of law in the Republic of Korea," emphasizing, "Do not overstep the boundaries set by the Constitution."

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