[New Year Project] Domestic Court Rulings Reluctant to Expand Disclosure Due to Concerns Over Basic Rights Infringement

Published 01 Jan.2024 17:00(KST)

[Towards Full Disclosure of Judgments]
From 2019 to 2022, 'Electronic Public Judgments' Accounted for 45% of Civil, Criminal, and Administrative Court Decisions

Editor's Note"Trials and judgments shall be open to the public." This is Article 109 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. But what is the reality? Even lawyers, who are legal professionals, often cannot obtain judgment documents and have to request them from judges or reporters. Although judgment documents can be viewed online through the Supreme Court of Korea’s website, it is not uncommon to encounter the message, "This judgment document is undergoing anonymization for personal information protection and will be available for viewing once processing is complete," for nearly a month. Voices calling for the expansion of judgment document disclosure to fulfill the constitutionally guaranteed rights of "the people's right to know" and "enhancing transparency of trials" are growing louder. In the AI era, the disclosure of judgment documents is an essential task to build a data ecosystem that matches the development trend of the legal tech market. The United States, Europe, and even China are vigorously expanding the disclosure of judgment documents and accelerating their database creation. As we welcome the new year of 2024, the year of Gapjin (甲辰), we take a look at the current status of judgment document disclosure in our judiciary.

[Photo by Beopryul Newspaper]

In countries like the United States, "disclosure is the principle and non-disclosure is the exception," but in Korea, concerns over infringement of fundamental rights are used as a pretext to hesitate in expanding judgment document disclosure.

Gradual Expansion... Yet Still Insufficient

Since 2023, our courts have been disclosing even non-final civil (including administrative and patent) case judgments delivered after January 1, 2023, through the court’s internet website. However, non-final criminal case judgments, judgments on small civil, administrative, and patent cases, dismissals due to non-submission of reasons for appeal, dismissals without hearing, cases where public trial is prohibited, and cases with viewing restrictions for confidentiality protection are still excluded from search and viewing.

Since before, it has been possible to search and view finalized criminal case judgments (including evidence lists) after January 1, 2013, and finalized civil, administrative, and patent case judgments after January 1, 2015. The problem is that the target judgments are only those finalized after 2013 and 2015, so judgments delivered before those years cannot be viewed on the website. Moreover, there is a fee of 1,000 KRW per judgment document, which imposes a financial burden when searching for multiple judgments.

According to statistics from the Court Administration Office and the annual Judicial Yearbook, the total number of substantive judgments (including non-final judgments) in civil, criminal, and administrative cases over four years from 2019 to 2022 was △930,938 in 2019 △925,999 in 2020 △891,361 in 2021 △834,799 in 2022. However, until 2022, only finalized judgments in criminal, civil, and administrative cases were registered and available for online viewing, totaling △414,270 in 2019 △425,537 in 2020 △410,718 in 2021 △418,288 in 2022, about 45% each year.

Nevertheless, complaints about the inconvenience of the service persist.

A young lawyer in Seocho-dong said, "Providing judgment documents is good, but every time I pay, I am told to close the window or reboot, and sometimes there is lag; it feels like they deliberately made it inconvenient."

A lawyer at a mid-sized law firm pointed out, "Recent judgments cannot be viewed immediately due to anonymization work, and even if viewed, severe anonymization makes it difficult to know who is who, making it hard to utilize."

Other Methods Besides Internet Viewing

Since 2003, the Supreme Court has disclosed some full texts of Supreme Court precedents after 1996 through the Comprehensive Legal Information System. For lower court judgments, one can request information disclosure or apply for a copy of the judgment. However, it is often difficult to receive judgment documents immediately. Especially, the provision rate of judgment documents upon copy requests remains stuck in the 50% range.

The Gyeonggi-do Ilsan Court Library also provides judgment documents to the public through its "Special Judgment Information Viewing" service. Visitors to the court library can view judgment documents without anonymization, but there is only one such facility nationwide, and approval from the court library director is required. Viewing is only allowed on-site, and taking photos or similar acts are immediately prohibited by staff. Since the court library moved from Seocho-dong to Ilsan, there have been many criticisms about reduced accessibility.

The Arrival of the AI Era... Need for Full Disclosure of Judgment Documents

With the so-called "AI era" arriving, calls to expand judgment document disclosure are growing louder. A global legal tech revolution is underway, and the disclosure of judgment documents, which serve as raw material, has become not a choice but a necessity.

Kang Min-gu, a leading IT expert within the courts and a presiding judge at the Seoul High Court, stated through Songbaek Diary, "There is an urgent need to 'wake up the sleeping Snow White' by fully disclosing raw judgments monopolized by the courts," adding, "Full disclosure of judgment documents is an essential element as raw data for the AI era."

A lawyer at a major law firm also analyzed, "In the AI era, transparent and open legal information is more important, so expanding the court’s disclosure of judgment documents can provide citizens with greater legal transparency and strengthen democratic principles." He continued, "Currently, some judgments in Korean courts are not disclosed, limiting citizens’ access, whereas advanced foreign countries disclose court judgments on a large scale, which helps promote legal transparency and an open society."