Incumbent Judge Files Lawsuit for Compensation of 300 Million Won for "Disadvantages in Personnel Appointments by the Supreme Court under Yang Sung-tae"

[경향신문]

Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Yang Sung-tae

An incumbent judge who claims to be a victim of unfair personnel decisions by the Supreme Court, filed a civil lawsuit against Yang Sung-tae (Yang Seung-tae, pictured), the former chief justice of the Supreme Court. The judge claims he filed the lawsuit to hold Yang Sung-tae responsible for violating the independence of a judge with unfair personnel decisions, because he had posted his opinion against a Supreme Court policy on the court’s intranet.

On November 19, Song Seung-yong, a chief judge at the Suwon District Court filed a lawsuit against former Chief Justice Yang and former chiefs of the National Court Administration Park Byoung-dae and Ko Young-han, as well as deputy chiefs Kang Hyung-joo and Im Jong-heon demanding compensation of 300 million won at the Seoul Central District Court. The list of defendants included a large number of incumbent judges, including Kim Yeon-hak and Nam Seong-min who oversaw human resources in the government and the National Court Administration and judge Na Sang-hun who was a coordinator at the Office of Planning and Coordination.

Judge Song was classified as a troublemaker after posting on the court’s intranet a suggestion to take a poll of judges on the future position of Supreme Court Justice Park Sang-ok, who was a nominee at the time. At the time allegations were raised against Park claiming he had contributed to a poorly conducted investigation, as a prosecutor investigating the torture and death of Park Jong-cheol. In a document written by Na upon orders from former deputy chief of the National Court Administration Im, there was a description of Song’s actions and tendency stating, “He has many suspicions about the court’s administration and distrusts the administration,” and “He tends to be an agitator, an outsider, a critic.”

The transfer of a judge is usually determined mechanically according to principles of personnel management, but the National Court Administration artificially downgraded the fairness ranking, which has priority in HR decisions in the court, and transferred Song to the Tongyeong branch of the court. The Tongyeong branch is the farthest from Seoul and is regarded as the remotest of the outbacks within the court.

Attorneys Kim Su-jeong, Kim Jin and Ryu Shin-hwan representing Song stated in the lawsuit that the actions by the defendants violated the Constitution, laws and international conventions and infringed the independence of judges. Article 103 of the Constitution stipulates that “Judges shall rule independently according to their conscience and in conformity with the Constitution and laws,” and Article 106 guarantees the status of a judge by stating that a judge shall not be removed from office except by impeachment. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights also state the need for an independent and fair court as a premise to ensure the citizens’ right to a trial. This includes independence within the judiciary as well as independence from outside the court.

Song’s legal representatives also stated in the lawsuit, “The independence of the judge is a constitutional value, an essential part of a trial in a country governed by law,” and added, “They (defendants) executed their authority in personnel affairs concerning judges with an arbitrary and unreasonable standard with the intention to control judges, and this violates the principles stated in the Constitution and laws.” They further stated, “They tried to control judges by establishing an HR system of judges that turned those who didn’t conform to Supreme Court policies into troublemakers and eventually weeded them out or forced them to comply with the policies.” The lawyers argued, “They seriously threatened the status of a judge, who should be able to conduct his tasks in a stable manner according to law and conscience.” As for the report by the Office of Planning and Coordination, which included an evaluation of Song, the lawyers held the defendants accountable for libel based on false statements.

The latest lawsuit is significant for it doesn’t just seek compensation for damages. It affirms the illegality of the abuse of authority in court administration and the right of judges to be independent. The day Song filed the lawsuit was the second anniversary of the day that a national judges association adopted a declaration stating that the abuse of court authority was a serious violation of the Constitution, one that demanded an impeachment review by the National Assembly.

However, in the last two years, the National Assembly has not engaged in any discussions on the impeachment of judges involved in the abuse of court authority. Hong Young-pyo, the floor leader of the Democratic Party of Korea at the time, stated his intention to proceed with an impeachment, but his words were never put into practice. Meanwhile, a considerable number of judges who were involved in the case resigned. The impeachment of a judge must be proposed by more than a third of the registered lawmakers in the National Assembly, and requires the majority of their votes. Therefore, since the ruling Democratic Party can obtain nearly 180 seats, including the 174 seats occupied by the party, they can promote the impeachment if they are willing. Lawyers for Democratic Society said, “If the abuse of court authority is buried once again in history, we cannot hide our fear of what kind of incidents we will be forced to face after that,” and added, “The National Assembly must quickly begin the process for impeachment before the relevant judges voluntarily resign.”