Noh Kyung-pil, Director of Court Administration: "Multiple Options Were Reported on Re-nomination Issue...Chief Justice Cho Was Never Angry"

Response to National Assembly Judiciary Committee Inquiry

Re-nomination Was Only One of Several Options

"Conclusion Depends on Interpretation of Presidential Office's Request"

Noh Kyung-pil, Director of Court Administration (Supreme Court Justice), on the 28th denied allegations raised by the ruling party that "Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae became furious and dismissed the opinion from the Court Administration Office that he should comply with the request for a re-nomination."

Yonhap News

Director Noh appeared before the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee for a current issues inquiry and responded to a related question from Assemblyman Park Kyoon-taek of the Democratic Party of Korea, stating, "The Chief Justice has never become furious at me," and added, "He has never shown anger, and the Court Administration Office has never reported any specific opinion on this matter."

Director Noh explained regarding the re-nomination request from the Presidential Office, "We provided several opinions. The suggestion to accept a re-nomination request was just one among multiple options."

Earlier, the Democratic Party alleged that an internal report from the Court Administration Office had recommended complying with the re-nomination request, but Chief Justice Cho dismissed this and ordered a reconsideration in favor of rejecting the re-nomination.

Director Noh clarified that the Court Administration Office had submitted several options regarding the re-nomination request and had not presented a single specific plan, nor has Chief Justice Cho ever rejected a particular proposal.

Director Noh further explained, "It can be interpreted that the President returned the nomination proposal. On the other hand, it could also be interpreted as the President asking the Chief Justice to withdraw the recommendation and nominate someone else instead, while formally maintaining the nomination."

He added, "If interpreted as an intention for the Chief Justice to withdraw the nomination and pick one of the remaining three candidates, we concluded it cannot be done since there is no constitutional basis for such an action. If considered as a return, there are three interpretations regarding what should be done next."

If the President's action is interpreted as a return of the nomination, Director Noh explained that the options are: 1) reconvening the Supreme Court Justice Recommendation Committee; 2) nominating one of the other three previously recommended candidates; or 3) proceeding with the National Assembly's consent procedure.

Regarding the last option, Director Noh said, "The President may ultimately refuse to appoint the nominee, but once the nomination has been submitted, it is interpreted that the process must go through the National Assembly's consent procedure."

Last month, on the 18th, Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae, unable to reach an agreement with the Presidential Office regarding the nomination of a Supreme Court justice, broke with the normal practice of consensus and nominated candidate Son Bong-ki.

Ten days later, on the 28th of last month, the Presidential Office requested a re-nomination, calling it a "unilateral written nomination without substantial consultation." However, 25 days after this request, on the 22nd, Chief Justice Cho announced to the press, "I cannot comply with the re-nomination request."

This was because the Presidential Office's re-nomination request document did not specify concrete reasons or constitutional grounds for the request, and no constitutional rationale or justification for the re-nomination request could be found.

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