Supreme Court: Restoration of Former Tongjindang Lawmakers' Status Not Possible (Comprehensive)

Local Council Member's 'Retention of Council Position' Confirmed

Oh Byung-yoon, Kim Jae-yeon, Kim Mi-hee, former Unified Progressive Party lawmakers, and party members held a press conference last month in front of the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu ahead of the first trial sentencing for Lee Min-geol, former Planning and Coordination Director of the Court Administration Office, and Lee Gyu-jin, former standing member of the Supreme Court Sentencing Commission, who are implicated in the so-called 'judicial farming' scandal involving interference in the status confirmation lawsuit of former Unified Progressive Party lawmakers (abuse of authority and obstruction of exercise of rights).
[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] Former Unified Progressive Party lawmakers who lost their parliamentary seats due to the Constitutional Court's ruling to dissolve the party filed a lawsuit seeking to restore their positions but ultimately lost as the Supreme Court also rejected their claims.

The Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Taeak Noh) announced on the morning of the 29th that it upheld the lower court's ruling against former Unified Progressive Party lawmakers Kim Mi-hee, Kim Jae-yeon, Oh Byung-yoon, Lee Sang-gyu, and Lee Seok-ki in their appeal lawsuit against the state to confirm their status as members of the National Assembly. The court ruled, "As an effect of the dissolution decision, lawmakers belonging to an unconstitutional party must be considered to have lost their seats."

Earlier, former lawmaker Kim Mi-hee and others filed a lawsuit in January of the following year, arguing that the Constitutional Court's December 2014 decision to dissolve the Unified Progressive Party unlawfully included the loss of their parliamentary seats without legal grounds. The first trial dismissed the lawsuit, stating, "The Constitutional Court, which holds the final authority on constitutional interpretation and application, made the decision, so the court cannot contest or re-examine it." The second trial held that the court could determine the loss of parliamentary seats but ruled against the plaintiffs, stating that the dissolution of an unconstitutional party naturally results in the loss of parliamentary seats.

The Supreme Court's judgment was consistent with the lower courts. It stated, "To exclude a party subject to a dissolution decision from participating in the political will formation process of the people, it is a natural logical consequence and aligns with the concept of defensive democracy to exclude lawmakers belonging to that party from the National Assembly." Furthermore, it added, "Even without explicit provisions, lawmakers belonging to an unconstitutional party must be considered to have lost their seats as an effect of the dissolution decision."

The lawsuit filed by the Unified Progressive Party lawmakers to confirm their parliamentary status also appeared in the judicial administration abuse scandal. It was alleged that the Court Administration Office exerted influence on the trial panel to prevent a 'dismissal' ruling in order to check the Constitutional Court, which had been competing with the Supreme Court. Former Supreme Court Sentencing Commission Standing Member Lee Gyu-jin was found guilty of such charges in the first trial held last month.

Meanwhile, on the same day, the Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Yusook Min) upheld the lower court's ruling in favor of former Unified Progressive Party member Lee Hyun-sook of the Jeonbuk Provincial Council in her appeal lawsuit to confirm her status. Previously, the National Election Commission, based on the Constitutional Court's dissolution decision, notified the removal of parliamentary seats from proportional representation local councilors of the former Unified Progressive Party, but Lee Hyun-sook filed a lawsuit opposing this.

Both the first and second trials ruled in favor of Lee Hyun-sook. At that time, the court interpreted that proportional representation local councilors who involuntarily leave or change their party affiliation should have their positions guaranteed under the relevant laws. The Supreme Court stated that there was "no error in the legal reasoning" of the lower court's judgment.

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