Yoon Seok-yeol's 'Dismissal of Prosecutor General Suspension' Lawsuit Dismissed... Yoon's Side "Focusing on Disciplinary Cancellation Lawsuit"

Yoon Seok-yeol, the presidential candidate of the People Power Party. / Photo by Yoon Dong-ju doso7@

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] Yoon Seok-yeol, the presidential candidate of the People Power Party, filed a lawsuit challenging the suspension of his duties ordered by Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae during his tenure as Prosecutor General, which was dismissed by the court.

It was judged that due to the nature of the suspension order, which suspends the execution of duties until a disciplinary action against the accused is decided, the effect of the suspension order is lost once the actual disciplinary action is taken.

The Administrative Court of Seoul, Administrative Division 4 (Presiding Judge Han Won-kyo) dismissed Yoon’s lawsuit filed on the 10th seeking cancellation of the suspension order against the Minister of Justice.

The key issue in this trial was whether there was a legal interest to seek cancellation of the suspension order’s effect after a two-month suspension disciplinary action had already been imposed on Yoon.

Yoon’s side argued that although the suspension order’s effect was extinguished by the disciplinary action, unlike Article 8, Paragraph 3 of the Prosecutor Disciplinary Act (which limits suspension to two months when the Minister of Justice suspends duties upon the Prosecutor General’s request), Article 8, Paragraph 2 (where the Minister of Justice orders suspension) has no limitation on the suspension period, representing a legal defect. They claimed this could be exploited by the Minister of Justice as a tool to effectively dismiss a sitting Prosecutor General.

They contended that since there is a risk of recurrence, the court should have an interest in judging whether the suspension order was lawful.

On the other hand, the Ministry of Justice argued that the suspension order was only a temporary and provisional suspension of duties until the disciplinary decision was finalized, so its effect was extinguished at the time the disciplinary action was taken, and thus there was no legal interest in the lawsuit.

The court sided with the Ministry of Justice.

The court stated, "The suspension order under Article 8, Paragraph 2 of the Prosecutor Disciplinary Act, such as in this case, is issued only when it is recognized that continuing the execution of duties by the accused prosecutor until the disciplinary action is taken is clearly inappropriate and necessary. Therefore, if the defendant issued a suspension order based on certain disciplinary allegations and subsequently imposed a disciplinary action or concluded related disciplinary procedures for the same reasons, the prior suspension order loses its effect due to the later disciplinary action or conclusion of procedures. Accordingly, the suspension order in this case lost its effect at the time the disciplinary action was taken."

Furthermore, the court ruled, "Since the suspension order loses its effect once a disciplinary action is taken or disciplinary procedures are concluded, the absence of any regulation on the suspension period for the accused under disciplinary request does not mean that the suspension order itself is illegal for effectively dismissing a Prosecutor General with a fixed term. The abstract possibility that suspension orders may be issued in future disciplinary procedures against the Prosecutor General does not justify recognizing an exceptional legal interest to seek cancellation of this suspension order."

This rejected Yoon’s claim that the case falls under "cases where there is a risk of repeated illegal orders for the same reasons requiring confirmation of illegality or clarification of unclear legal issues," which would exceptionally recognize legal interest for protection.

Yoon’s side also expressed some acceptance of the court’s judgment after the ruling, stating they would focus on the main lawsuit challenging the cancellation of the disciplinary action.

Yoon’s legal representative, Attorney Son Kyung-sik, told reporters immediately after the ruling, "This is neither a judgment that the suspension order was right nor wrong. It should be understood as meaning that it no longer has the qualification to be subject to litigation legally."

Co-counsel Attorney Lee Wan-gyu said, "We need to review it, but there are aspects of the court’s legal reasoning on the interest in litigation that are acceptable. We plan to focus on the appeal trial of the main lawsuit challenging the disciplinary cancellation rather than this case."

Yoon was suspended from his duties by former Minister Choo in December last year while still in office, and after the disciplinary committee decided on a two-month suspension, he filed a cancellation lawsuit with the court.

In October, the court ruled against Yoon, recognizing two of the reasons cited by the Ministry of Justice for the two-month suspension disciplinary action: the order to prepare a court analysis document and obstruction of inspection and investigation related to the Channel A case. The court found that the court analysis document contained a large amount of information collected in violation of the Personal Information Protection Act.

Yoon’s side appealed the first trial ruling on the disciplinary cancellation lawsuit, and the appeal was assigned to the Administrative Division 1-1 of the Seoul High Court (Presiding Judges Ko Ui-young, Lee Won-beom, Kang Seung-joon).

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