Korea's chief justice nominated two justices in writing on August 18, 2026 — and skipped the visit
Chief Justice Jo Hee-de nominated judges Son Bong-gi and Kim Seong-su as Supreme Court justices to President Lee Jae-myung in writing on August 18, 2026, skipping the customary prior consultation and in-person visit. The presidential office called it unprecedented in Korea's constitutional history
The three lines
- Nominees — Son Bong-gi (Daegu District Court) and Kim Seong-su (Seoul High Court), for two vacancies
- Dispute — the procedure, not the candidates. The presidential office called it a one-way notification; the ruling party called it a challenge to the appointment power
- Law — neither the constitution nor statute prescribes how a nomination must be delivered. In writing is not unlawful, the other side argues
Key questions
- Why is nominating justices in writing controversial?
- Not because it broke a law, but because it broke a practice. Article 104(2) of Korea's constitution says only that 'Supreme Court justices shall be appointed by the President on the nomination of the Chief Justice, with the consent of the National Assembly.' Nothing in the constitution or the Court Organisation Act prescribes how a nomination is delivered. The established custom was that the chief justice and the presidential office narrowed candidates through prior consultation, after which the chief justice visited the president in person. On August 18, 2026 neither the consultation nor the visit happened — only a document arrived. The presidential office described this as unprecedented in constitutional history and as a one-way notification that skipped consultation.
- Can the president refuse a nominee?
- The constitution does not say. It states only that appointment follows 'on the nomination of the Chief Justice,' with no clause on whether a president may return a nomination or demand a different candidate. In practice no nominee has been blocked at the presidential stage. That is why attention has settled on whether President Lee will forward the consent motion to the National Assembly. If he does not, the constitution's silence governs an unplanned situation. If he does, a nomination made without consultation stands as precedent.
- How many Supreme Court seats are currently vacant?
- Two are at issue here. Son Bong-gi would succeed former justice Roh Tae-ak, who retired in March 2026, and Kim Seong-su would succeed justice Lee Heung-gu, due to retire on September 7. The Roh seat has been vacant for more than five months. From nomination to appointment normally takes over a month, running through a National Assembly confirmation hearing and a floor vote requiring a majority of those present, with a majority of the full membership in attendance.
In Korea, the chief justice chooses Supreme Court justices, the National Assembly consents, and the president appoints. The constitution says so.
It does not say how the chief justice is supposed to hand the president the names. On August 18 that blank space became the story.
1. What happened
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Date | August 18, 2026 |
| Nominator | Chief Justice Jo Hee-de |
| Nominee 1 | Son Bong-gi — senior judge, Daegu District Court |
| Nominee 2 | Kim Seong-su — senior judge, Seoul High Court |
| Vacancy 1 | Roh Tae-ak, retired March 2026 |
| Vacancy 2 | Lee Heung-gu, retiring September 7, 2026 |
| Method | In writing. No prior consultation, no meeting with the president |
Only the last row is in dispute. Little objection has been raised so far to the qualifications of either nominee.
2. What the practice was
| Previously | August 18, 2026 | |
|---|---|---|
| Step 1 | Chief justice and presidential office narrow candidates in consultation | None |
| Step 2 | Chief justice visits the president | None |
| Step 3 | Nomination delivered in person | Delivered in writing |
The heart of the custom is step 1, not step 3. Whether the document is handed over or posted is a formality after the consultation is done. Both were missing this time, but the weight of the objection sits at the front — hence the presidential office's phrasing about a one-way notification that skipped consultation.
Read the constitutional text against that and the situation clarifies. Article 104(2) says: justices are appointed by the president on the nomination of the chief justice, with the consent of the National Assembly.
The nomination power belongs to the chief justice. No duty to consult appears in the text. So this is not a question of legality but of what remains when a custom fills a gap in the written rules and then the custom breaks.
3. The two arguments
| "Abuse of the nomination power" | "An exclusive constitutional power" | |
|---|---|---|
| Claim | A unilateral nomination hollows out the president's appointment power | The constitution grants this power to the chief justice alone |
| Basis | The appointing authority was wholly excluded from forming the candidate list | No provision mandates any particular method, in person or in writing |
| Voiced by | Ruling party; Minbyun (Lawyers for a Democratic Society) | Hanbyun and other conservative bar groups |
Inside the ruling Democratic Party the reaction included calling it a serious challenge to the president's appointment power, against a backdrop in which impeaching the chief justice had earlier been floated. The other side points out that the constitution names who holds the power and says nothing about how it is exercised.
The two positions do not disagree about facts. They disagree about how to read the same blank space. Neither is inventing a clause the other cannot see.
4. What gets decided next
The process now sits in front of the president.
| Stage | Status |
|---|---|
| Chief justice's nomination | Complete (August 18) |
| President submits consent motion to the Assembly | Undecided |
| Assembly confirmation hearing | Pending |
| Assembly floor vote | Majority of those present, with a majority of members attending |
| Presidential appointment | After consent |
Nomination to appointment normally takes over a month. With Lee Heung-gu retiring on September 7, that seat will sit empty for a while even if the process starts immediately. The Roh Tae-ak seat has already been vacant more than five months.
The structure of this dispute is that both of the president's options carry a cost. Proceeding sets a precedent for nominations made without consultation. Not proceeding extends vacancies on the Supreme Court, with no rule governing how long that may last.
5. What is left and what could not be confirmed
- The original wording — "unprecedented in constitutional history" and "one-way notification" are quoted in reporting; the source text and delivery format were not confirmed.
- The president's next move — no consent motion or timetable as of publication.
- Contact before the nomination — reporting is inconsistent or silent on what communication preceded it.
- Impeachment talk — reports that some in the ruling party raised impeaching the chief justice were not verified as to scope.
- Related — how the whole procedure works is set out in "What Korea's Supreme Court nomination power is."
Sources
- Herald Business — Jo Hee-de breaks with practice, nominating two justices in writing
- Digital Times — Ruling party reacts angrily to a nomination that skipped the in-person report
- Korea NGO News — Lawyers' groups split on whether the written nomination abused the power
- Seoul Economic Daily — Editorial: a written nomination and a standoff the public pays for
- Korea.kr — Government policy briefing