Supreme Court Nominee Cho Hee-dae, Reviewing Rulings... Emphasizes 'Principle' Beyond Conservative or Progressive Views

Protection of Legitimate Union Activities... Multiple Rulings Recognizing 'Worker Status'
First Supreme Court Judgment Recognizing Child Abuse in 'Shaken Baby Syndrome' Cases

As the vacancy in the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has continued for nearly 60 days, evaluations of Cho Hee-dae, the nominee for Chief Justice, highlight his clear 'conservative inclination.' However, both inside and outside the legal community, the prevailing view is that Cho is not a judge with political leanings such as conservative or progressive, but rather a judge who prioritizes 'principles' in his rulings.

Cho Hee-dae, nominee for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, is answering reporters' questions as he arrives for his first day at the candidate hearing preparation office in Seocho-gu, Seoul on the 15th. Photo by Heo Young-han younghan@

Within the judiciary, the general assessment is that Cho is perceived as conservative mainly because he was appointed as a Supreme Court justice during the Park Geun-hye administration, which does not accurately reflect his actual stance. In fact, many of the cases he ruled on involved overturning lower court decisions that hindered legitimate labor union activities or conflicted with the public's sense of justice, yet he is often misunderstood as having made conservative rulings.

However, Cho is known for ruling based on principles and tends to avoid proactive legal interpretations, leading to the expectation that progressive rulings during his tenure will be rare.

Many ‘First Rulings’ Favoring Workers... Broad Interpretation of ‘Worker’

According to a compilation of Asia Economy's reporting on the 21st, Cho, during his time as a Supreme Court justice, generally interpreted the scope of ‘worker’ broadly in cases where he served as the presiding judge, resulting in many rulings favoring laborers.

First, Cho made a landmark ruling in a case where 19 home appliance repair technicians sued their company for severance pay. He ruled that repair technicians who had subcontract agreements with home appliance service agencies could be recognized as workers under the Labor Standards Act if a substantial subordinate relationship existed.

At the time, Cho stated, "Given that the employer holds an economically superior position and has significant discretion in arbitrarily setting base or fixed wages, it is not easy to deny worker status."

He also issued the Supreme Court's first ruling affirming that private tutors could form labor unions and engage in union activities such as collective actions. In a case where teachers at Jaeneung Education filed an unfair dismissal cancellation lawsuit against the chairman of the Central Labor Relations Commission, Cho, as the presiding judge, overturned the second-instance ruling that denied worker status under the Labor Union Act and ruled, "Even if one is not a worker under the Labor Standards Act, if there is a need to protect the three labor rights, one can be considered a worker under the Labor Union Act."

The legal community views this ruling as a milestone that allowed labor service workers to be recognized as workers under the Labor Union Act under certain conditions, thereby lawfully exercising constitutional labor rights.

Additionally, Cho ruled in favor of a union official who was dismissed after forming a union at Samsung Everland (now Samsung C&T), which practiced ‘no-union management.’ He also ruled against Samsung in a case where union members were suspended for distributing leaflets recruiting union members.

Rulings Aligning with ‘Public Sense of Justice’... Expanded Scope of State Compensation

Cho also delivered the Supreme Court's first ruling recognizing ‘shaken baby syndrome,’ a form of head injury caused by a caregiver violently shaking a child, as a type of child abuse. Shaken baby syndrome mainly occurs in children under two years old and is known to happen when a child’s crying cannot be soothed, leading to the caregiver shaking the child in anger.

Cho upheld the original sentence of three years and six months imprisonment for a biological father who severely shook and dropped his eight-month-old baby, resulting in the child's death. He rejected the father's claim that he was merely playing ‘airplane game.’

Furthermore, Cho expanded the scope of state liability for compensation. In the so-called ‘Oh Won-chun case,’ where the victim died due to police negligence despite reporting to the police, Cho ruled that "if the police officers had not violated their duty, the victim’s death could have been avoided," thereby recognizing state compensation liability.

Cho also ruled that the nationwide emergency martial law declared by the Park Chung-hee government in 1972 was unconstitutional and illegal. He pointed out, "Despite the constitutional provisions at the time to maximize the protection of citizens' fundamental rights, the martial law proclamation infringed on freedoms of the press, publication, assembly, association, and the principle of warrant requirement," concluding that "the martial law proclamation in October 1972 was unconstitutional, illegal, and void."

Judge A said, "It is accurate to describe Cho as a ‘principlist.’ He restrains arbitrary judicial decisions and strictly interprets the law, making rulings based on principles. This may give the impression of conservatism, but the view that he leans toward the conservative side is not accurate."

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