Nomination of Supreme Court Justices

A constitutional procedure in which the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court designates a candidate for appointment as a Supreme Court Justice, requiring the National Assembly's consent and the Presiden

Nomination of Supreme Court Justices

Overview

The nomination of Supreme Court Justices (大法官提請; daebeopgwan jecheong) is the constitutional authority by which the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court designates a candidate for a newly appointed Supreme Court Justice, subjecting that candidate to the consent of the National Assembly and appointment by the President. Article 104(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that "Supreme Court Justices shall be appointed by the President upon the nomination of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, subject to the consent of the National Assembly," thereby placing the substantive starting point of a Justice's appointment in the Chief Justice's nomination. This is assessed as a compromise design: it grants the head of the judiciary the authority to initiate appointments in order to guarantee the independence of the judiciary, while simultaneously establishing the National Assembly's consent as a check to secure democratic legitimacy.

Main Content

Legal Basis and Procedural Structure

The basis for the nomination of Supreme Court Justices lies in Article 104(2) of the Constitution and Article 42 of the Court Organization Act. The procedure proceeds in the following order: (1) occurrence of a vacancy on the Supreme Court and the search for candidates; (2) deliberation and recommendation by the Supreme Court Justice Candidate Recommendation Committee; (3) final nomination by the Chief Justice; (4) the National Assembly's confirmation hearing and vote on the appointment motion; and (5) the President's conferral of the letter of appointment. The Chief Justice's nomination is a formal personnel act with legal binding force, and the National Assembly reviews the nominated candidate and decides whether to consent. If the National Assembly does not consent, the appointment does not take place, and the Chief Justice must nominate a new candidate.

Number and Composition of Supreme Court Justices

Under Article 4(2) of the Court Organization Act, the number of Supreme Court Justices, excluding the Chief Justice, is 14. The Chief Justice is appointed by the President with the consent of the National Assembly, whereas Supreme Court Justices must go through nomination by the Chief Justice, distinguishing the two procedures. Supreme Court Justices carry out adjudication at the Supreme Court and also serve as members of the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court, of each Division, and of major judicial administrative bodies such as the Sentencing Commission and the Judicial Policy Research Institute.

Qualifications and Term

To become a Supreme Court Justice, a person must be a judge, prosecutor, or attorney, or a person qualified as an attorney, with at least 15 years of legal experience (Article 42(1) of the Court Organization Act). The term of office is six years, and reappointment is possible as provided by law. This contrasts with the Chief Justice's six-year term and ineligibility for reappointment; the possibility of reappointment for Supreme Court Justices has been the subject of debate from two angles: independence from political pressure during one's term and the formation of long-term legal doctrine.

Supreme Court Justice Candidate Recommendation Committee

Article 42-2 of the Court Organization Act provides that the Supreme Court Justice Candidate Recommendation Committee shall be established within the Supreme Court to assist the Chief Justice in the nomination of Supreme Court Justices. The Committee consists of no more than ten members, including its chair, and its composition includes not only internal personnel of the judiciary but also outside figures such as law professors, attorneys, and civil society figures, serving to enhance the diversity and transparency of the candidate pool. The Committee recommends multiple candidates to the Chief Justice after documentary screening and interviews of candidates; the Chief Justice refers to these recommendations but exercises the final power of nomination independently.

National Assembly Consent and Confirmation Hearing

The motion for consent to the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice goes through the confirmation hearing procedure under the Confirmation Hearing Act of the National Assembly. The Special Committee on Confirmation Hearings examines the candidate's legal career, materials verifying moral character such as assets, military service, and taxes, and judicial tendencies and legal philosophy. The result of the hearing leads to a vote on the appointment motion at the plenary session of the National Assembly, which is decided by the attendance of a majority of the members and the affirmative vote of a majority of the members present. If the motion is rejected or the vote is delayed for a long period, the vacancy on the Supreme Court becomes prolonged, which may cause delays in adjudication and an accumulation of pending cases.

Filling Vacancies and the Vacancy Problem

When a Supreme Court Justice retires, dies, or resigns, the Chief Justice bears the duty to commence the procedure for nominating a successor without delay. In practice, however, there are not a few cases in which a gap of several months arises owing to candidate verification, Committee review, and the National Assembly's hearing schedule. If a vacancy is prolonged, it becomes difficult to organize the panels of each Division of the Supreme Court, and the deliberation schedule of the Grand Bench is also disrupted.

Recent Developments

In 2024–2025 as well, the process of nominating and appointing Supreme Court Justices emerged as a representative issue illustrating the tense relationship between the judiciary and the political sphere. As periods of large-scale turnover due to the mandatory retirement age and expiration of terms of Supreme Court Justices coincided, cases repeatedly occurred in which the Chief Justice's nomination and the National Assembly's appointment consent procedure became entangled with political issues and drifted for long periods. The ruling and opposition parties clashed sharply over candidates' judicial and ideological tendencies, and as disputes over materials verifying moral character continued at confirmation hearings, the handling of the appointment motions itself was delayed.

Alongside this, discussions on institutional improvement also became active. Demands that the composition and operation of the Supreme Court Justice Candidate Recommendation Committee be disclosed more transparently, proposals to present multiple candidates to the National Assembly at the nomination stage, arguments to set a statutory upper limit on the confirmation hearing period, and calls to prepare a temporary filling procedure when a vacancy occurs have been raised in the legal community and academia. Criticism of the practice of reappointment and long tenure of Supreme Court Justices is also growing, as are social demands that justices be nominated from among women, non-judge backgrounds, and legal professionals of diverse backgrounds. The judiciary is reorganizing its internal personnel norms in the direction of enhancing the predictability and transparency of the nomination procedure, while considering ways to make its channel of consultation with the National Assembly a standing one.

As of 2025, the nomination of Supreme Court Justices is being treated not merely as a personnel procedure but as a constitutional issue in which three axes—judicial independence, the National Assembly's power of check, and the President's power of appointment—interlock, and discussions on related legislative amendments and constitutional interpretation are expected to continue.