Noh Kyung-pil, head of the National Court Administration and a Supreme Court justice, denied allegations raised by the ruling party that Chief Justice Jo Hee-de reacted with fury and dismissed a recommendation from the court administration that he accept a renomination of a Supreme Court justice candidate.
Asked about the matter at an emergency question-and-answer session of the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee on the 28th, Noh said, "The chief justice has never raged at me." He added, "He never lost his temper, and the court administration never reported any particular recommendation to him."
Noh acknowledged that the court administration had reviewed the option of accepting the presidential office's demand for a renomination. But he said it was examined as one of several options rather than presented as a single recommendation. The Democratic Party had earlier alleged that the court administration drew up an opinion in favor of accepting the renomination demand but that Jo rejected it.
Noh said whether a renomination is possible depends on how the presidential office's demand is interpreted. "It could be seen as the president returning the nomination," he said. "But on the other hand, it can also be read as keeping the nomination in place while asking the chief justice to withdraw it himself and nominate someone else."
If the demand means the chief justice should withdraw his own nomination and then nominate a different candidate, the court administration's view is that it would be difficult to accept because there is no constitutional basis for such a step. If the president is seen as having returned the nomination itself, however, Noh said several options could be considered: reconstituting the Supreme Court Justice Candidate Recommendation Committee, nominating one of the other two candidates among the three already recommended, or proceeding with the National Assembly consent process for now.
Jo nominated Son Bong-gi as a Supreme Court justice on Aug. 18. The presidential office demanded a renomination on Aug. 28, calling it a "unilateral written nomination made without substantive consultation." On Sept. 22, Jo said he could not comply with the request, arguing that the demand for a renomination lacked a constitutional basis and specific grounds.
