Controversy Over Non-Disclosure of Supreme Court Business Expenses

Rep. Seo pointed out that the Office of Court Administration's head had claimed the office demanded inclusion of headcounts in the materials submitted to her office, calling this a lie, and strongly criticized the response as an improvised answer that would not do.

In response, Rep. Seo Young-kyo formally demanded submission of the documents through a committee resolution.

Rep. Lee Seong-yun noted that under the previous Yoon Suk Yeol administration, prior consultation with the presidential office in the nomination of Supreme Court justices had become customary.

When he asked why the appointment of a successor to Justice No Tae-hak had been delayed after his retirement, the answer was that although there had been continuous consultation with the Blue House, a final agreement was not reached.

By contrast, in the case of Justice Kim Sung-soo, the appointment proceeded smoothly through prior consultation, which made the delay in appointing Justice No's successor all the more questionable.

According to Rep. Lee Seong-yun, since last May Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae has faced criticism of engaging in 'self-serving politics.'

Rep. Lee criticized Chief Justice Cho's use of constitutional interpretive authority to unilaterally determine that there was no basis for a request for re-nomination, calling it 'Cho Hee-dae-style unilateral constitutional interpretation.'

Rep. Lee Seong-yun argued that the Chief Justice should appear directly before the audit to explain the pending issues, and raised concerns that the head of the Office of Court Administration continued to answer on his behalf.