Parliamentary Audit of Courts Today: Debate Expected Over Kim Manbae Warrant Rejection and Judge Surveillance

Ruling Party Lawmakers Expected to Press Yoon Seokyeol Over Alleged "Judge Surveillance"
Opposition Likely to Criticize National Judges’ Representatives Council for Silence on Kwon Soonil’s "Trial Dealing" Allegations

Seoul Central District Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul. Photo by Choi Seokjin

[Asia Economy, Seokjin Choi, Legal Affairs Correspondent] On October 15, a parliamentary audit will be conducted targeting courts in the Seoul metropolitan area, including Seoul Central District Court and Seoul Administrative Court.

The previous day, the court rejected an arrest warrant for Kim Manbae, the major shareholder of Hwacheon Daeyu and a key figure in the "Daejang-dong development project favoritism and lobbying" allegations. Additionally, the Seoul Administrative Court ruled against former Prosecutor General Yoon Seokyeol in his lawsuit seeking to overturn disciplinary action, acknowledging the illegality of his order to create the "judicial panel analysis document." As a result, heated debates between ruling and opposition party lawmakers over these issues are expected during the audit.

The National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee will conduct the audit from 10 a.m. at the National Assembly, covering Seoul High Court, Seoul Central District Court, Seoul Eastern, Southern, Northern, and Western District Courts, Seoul Administrative Court, Seoul Bankruptcy Court, Suwon High Court, Suwon District Court, Incheon District Court, and others.

As was the case in previous audits of the Supreme Court, Ministry of Justice, and prosecution, the Daejang-dong allegations are expected to be the main issue in this court audit as well.

In particular, opposition lawmakers are expected to intensify their criticism regarding the court's rejection of Kim’s arrest warrant the previous day at Seoul Central District Court.

Kim is suspected of having lobbied former Supreme Court Justice Kwon Soonil for leniency ahead of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Gyeonggi Governor Lee Jaemyung’s violation of the Public Official Election Act. For this reason, the opposition may claim that the judiciary, led by Chief Justice Kim Myeongsoo, is acting to protect Lee, who was selected as the ruling party’s presidential candidate.

However, regarding the background of the rejection of Kim’s arrest warrant, the prevailing assessment is that the prosecution hastily requested the warrant before completing account tracing, which led to its rejection. Therefore, opposition lawmakers may focus less on the rejection itself and instead criticize issues such as Chief Justice Kim’s biased personnel appointments.

Meanwhile, the previous day, the Seoul Administrative Court dismissed former Prosecutor General Yoon’s request to overturn his two-month suspension, which was based on his order to create the "judicial panel analysis document."

In its reasoning, the court stated that the document, created by the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office’s Criminal Information Policy Office under Yoon’s direction, contained numerous pieces of personal information collected in violation of the Personal Information Protection Act. The court found that Yoon’s actions violated Article 56 of the National Public Service Act, which mandates compliance with laws, as well as the Code of Conduct for Prosecutors’ Office employees.

Ruling party lawmakers are expected to argue, based on this court decision, that the court has recognized Yoon’s illegal surveillance of judges. They are also likely to emphasize that Son Junseong, the former chief of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office’s Criminal Information Policy Office-currently under investigation by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) for the "indictment instigation" allegations-is inevitably in a special relationship with Yoon due to his position.

Additionally, opposition lawmakers are expected to criticize the National Judges’ Representatives Council for its silence regarding the "trial dealing" allegations against former Supreme Court Justice Kwon, who received large consulting fees from Hwacheon Daeyu after retirement.

There are also expected to be questions from both ruling and opposition lawmakers about whether the actions of former Busan High Court Presiding Judge Lim Seonggeun, which are the grounds for his impeachment currently being reviewed by the Constitutional Court, constitute interference in trials of junior judges.

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