[Reporter’s Notebook] What Matters More Than “Stocks Instead of Gold Rings”

“These days, instead of giving a gold ring at the 100-day celebration, stocks are given,” said Lee Suk-yeon, a nominee for the Supreme Court Justice, who later apologized for the remark and donated stocks worth 3.7 billion KRW to society. The confirmation hearing took place on the 25th, and the press release was issued on the 27th. The Youth Happiness Foundation, the recipient of the donation, expressed its gratitude. The most notable headline during this process was Lee’s statement: “Nowadays, children are given stocks instead of gold rings at their first birthday or 100-day celebration.”

Lee is wealthy. She declared assets worth 17 billion KRW. She owns a 174㎡ apartment in Seocho-gu, Seoul. Her bank deposits amount to 1.4 billion KRW. Her spouse’s assets are also in the 10 billion KRW range. Their eldest daughter in her 20s owns a total of 600 million KRW, including a multi-family house. Additionally, she sold unlisted stocks bought with money borrowed from her parents back to her father, earning about 63 times the market price in six years. The “Dad’s chance” controversy intensified. Heo Eun-ah, leader of the Reform New Party, urged her to resign voluntarily, saying, “This is suitable for an investment company, not the Supreme Court.”

But should the fact that Lee is a wealthy individual whose child inherited a large sum be subject to empirical criticism by itself? Shouldn’t the legality of the gift process be examined first? Judges live under the principles of laissez-faire and private autonomy. They are protected in their private property rights and may hold stocks and real estate. There is no law prohibiting high-ranking public officials from pursuing “rents” or “surplus products.” The expectation that judges must live in a market-free, sterile vacuum where they neither contract, invest, nor purchase is unrealistic. If that were the case, only clergy detached from the secular world should serve as judges.

The core issue is whether there is a “conflict of interest” or “pursuit of private gain.” This is necessary to more clearly and visibly monitor and check judges’ conduct. The key to verifying morality should be whether a judge actively recuses or avoids cases when their interests or biases are involved in a ruling. For example, a Supreme Court Justice should not sell stocks of a particular large corporation before delivering a guilty verdict related to that company.

The same applies when two parties fight over legal interests. “Worker and employer, consumer and company, protester and law enforcer, creditor and debtor, the party subject to disposition and administrative agency, victim and perpetrator...” Supreme Court Justices participate as referees in disputes. If a judge directly involves themselves in the game, it is likely tied to their private interests. The role of the representative institution, the National Assembly, is to check this.

The book “Nine Pillars of Wisdom,” which discusses the U.S. Supreme Court, features a lawyer who deliberately approaches a justice likely to give unfavorable testimony in an appellate trial to convey the intention to request a retrial. Two justices recuse themselves simply because they heard that information. This is a concrete example of judicial morality and professional ethics.

It is worth considering whether confirmation hearings that criticize judges with arguments like “How can a judge engage in such financial speculation?” are effective in vetting Supreme Court Justices. The concentration of privilege and inheritance of wealth should be addressed alongside structural issues such as tax burden rates, inheritance and gift taxes, and wealth disparity. When the elected legislature monitors the unelected judiciary, it must be based on refined principles. The fatigue caused by public opinion-driven confirmation hearings is significant.

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