🚨 Supreme Court Justice Expansion Act: Debate Over Judicial Composition and Independence

Today Korean Social News | 2025.06.06

📌 Supreme Court Justice Expansion Bill Raises Concerns About Judicial Independence

💬 The National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee passed a bill in subcommittee to increase the number of Supreme Court justices from 14 to 30. Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae called this "a matter affecting the nation's next 100 years" and urged the creation of public discussion forums. The Court Administration Office expressed concerns that rapidly adding a majority of new justices could threaten judicial neutrality. The ruling party claims this is necessary to improve judicial efficiency and expertise, while the opposition and judiciary strongly oppose it as an attempt to control the courts for political purposes.

Summary

• The Supreme Court Justice Expansion Act increases the current 14 justices, with a recent bill proposing a dramatic expansion to 30 justices.
• Supporters argue for improved efficiency and expertise, while opponents worry about threats to judicial independence.
• The key issue is balancing judicial system development with guaranteeing political neutrality.

1️⃣ Definition

The Supreme Court Justice Expansion Act means legislation that increases the current number of 14 Supreme Court justices (including 1 Chief Justice). Specifically, it means amending the Court Organization Act to expand the number of justices.

The current proposed bill would dramatically increase the number from 14 to 30 justices. This goes beyond simple staffing adjustments and represents a major institutional reform that could fundamentally change the structure and operations of the entire judiciary.

💡 Why is this important?

• It directly affects the Supreme Court's case processing capacity and efficiency.
• It's a key factor that could influence judicial independence and political neutrality.
• It impacts citizens' right to fair trials and the quality of judicial services.
• It's directly connected to constitutional principles of separation of powers and checks and balances.

2️⃣ Background and Issues of the Supreme Court Justice Expansion Act

📕 Current Supreme Court System and Limitations

• We need to understand the current composition and workload. The current system works as follows:

  • The Supreme Court consists of 1 Chief Justice and 13 Associate Justices, totaling 14 members.
  • Supreme Court justices serve 6-year terms and retire at age 70.
  • Justices are appointed by the President with National Assembly approval.
  • The Supreme Court mainly handles appeals from lower court decisions and some constitutional matters.

• Current system limitations are being pointed out. Main problems include:

  • Heavy workload and delays due to rapidly increasing appeal cases.
  • Each justice handles about 300 cases per year, which is excessive compared to developed countries.
  • Difficulty ensuring expertise in specialized areas of law.
  • Concerns about lack of diverse opinions and uniform judgments due to few justices.

📕 Arguments for Expansion and Expected Benefits

• Main arguments supporting expansion include: Core reasoning is as follows:

  • Expansion is unavoidable for quick and thorough review of rapidly increasing appeal cases.
  • Specialized justices in economics, labor, tax, and intellectual property can improve judgment expertise.
  • More justices participating can reflect diverse perspectives and experiences, improving decision quality.
  • Expanding to developed country levels meets international standards.

• Expected specific benefits include: Main effects are:

  • Shorter case processing times will substantially guarantee citizens' right to fair trials.
  • Expert review will increase predictability and consistency of decisions.
  • Sufficient discussion and review among justices enables careful judgment.
  • Expanded chamber system allows efficient case assignment and review.

📕 Opposition Arguments and Concerns

• Core concerns of expansion opponents include: Main arguments are:

  • Replacing a majority of justices in a short time could damage judicial political neutrality.
  • The current government might appoint many friendly justices to control the judiciary.
  • Sudden expansion could weaken the Supreme Court's authority and status.
  • Problems could be solved through strengthening lower courts or limiting appeals rather than expansion.

• Specific concerns about negative effects are raised. Main worries include:

  • Existing precedents could change rapidly based on new justices' orientations.
  • Increased justices could complicate decision-making and actually create inefficiency.
  • Difficulty forming full court sessions could disrupt important case reviews.
  • Scattered opinions among justices could weaken legal unification functions.

Key Issues of the Supreme Court Justice Expansion Act

1. Political Neutrality: Impact of mass appointments in a short time on judicial independence
2. Timing and Method: Appropriateness of gradual vs. sudden large-scale expansion
3. Effectiveness: Actual effectiveness of improving work efficiency through expansion
4. Public Consensus: Lack of social agreement on judicial system reform
5. Alternative Review: Need for sufficient examination of solutions other than expansion

3️⃣ International Cases and Current Status

✅ Comparison of Major Countries' Supreme Court Composition

• Each country's supreme court composition varies. International comparisons show:

  • US Federal Supreme Court: 9 members (fixed since 1869), lifetime terms
  • German Federal Supreme Court: About 130 in 12 civil divisions, about 50 in 5 criminal divisions
  • Japan Supreme Court: 15 members (1 Chief Justice, 14 Associate Justices), age 70 retirement
  • French Court of Cassation: About 150 total in 3 civil, 1 criminal, 1 social division, etc.
  • UK Supreme Court: 12 members (1 President, 1 Deputy President, 10 Justices)

• Korea's current situation and characteristics can be compared. Main features include:

  • Korea's 14 justices are relatively few compared to major countries.
  • The number is insufficient relative to population or caseload.
  • However, direct comparison is limited due to different judicial systems and court structures.
  • Most countries that expanded did so gradually.

✅ Domestic Progress and Current Status

• There's a history of Supreme Court expansion discussions. Major developments include:

  • When the current constitution was established in 1988, justices increased from 9 to 14.
  • Expansion needs were periodically raised afterward but without concrete progress.
  • In 2019, the Moon Jae-in government considered expansion but didn't pursue it.
  • Serious expansion discussions began after the Yoon Suk-yeol government took office in 2024.

• Current progress and future outlook exist. Main current status:

  • In June 2025, the National Assembly Judiciary Committee subcommittee passed the 30-justice expansion bill.
  • The Court Administration Office and Chief Justice expressed concerns, calling for careful approaches.
  • The ruling party wants quick bill processing, while the opposition strongly opposes.
  • Debates continue in the judiciary, academia, and civil society.

4️⃣ Related Terms

🔎 Supreme Court

• The Supreme Court is the nation's highest judicial institution, responsible for legal interpretation and precedent unification.
• The Supreme Court is the highest-level court that handles final appeals in a three-tier court system. In Korea, the Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority that independently exercises judicial power according to the constitution and laws.
• The Supreme Court's main functions include: First, appeals function - handling final judgments on decisions from high courts or special courts. Second, legal interpretation function - correcting wrong legal interpretations by lower courts. Third, precedent unification function - ensuring consistent trials across all national courts. Fourth, judicial administration function - overseeing administrative affairs of all national courts.
• The Chief Justice heads the judiciary, represents the Supreme Court, and oversees judicial administration. Together with Associate Justices, the Chief Justice makes final decisions on important legal issues. Supreme Court decisions become precedents that serve as standards for lower court trials, making them very significant.

🔎 Judicial Independence

• Judicial independence is the principle that courts judge according only to the constitution and laws without outside interference.
• Judicial independence means the judiciary can independently try cases according only to the constitution and laws, without any interference or influence from the legislative branch, executive branch, political parties, media, public opinion, or other external forces. This is a core constitutional principle of the rule of law and separation of powers.
• Judicial independence includes: First, individual judge independence - each judge must be able to make independent judgments according to conscience in trials. Second, court independence - the entire judiciary must have autonomy in organizational operations. Third, trial independence - no instructions or interference should be received regarding specific cases.
• To guarantee judicial independence, judge tenure security (term system, retirement age), strict procedures for judge discipline or impeachment, and court budget independence are necessary. The Supreme Court justice expansion controversy is closely related to these judicial independence principles.

🔎 Appeals Court

• Appeals court refers to final-level trials that examine only the appropriateness of legal interpretation and application.
• Appeals court refers to final-level trials to correct errors in legal application or serious fact-finding mistakes in decisions made by district courts or high courts. In Korea, the Supreme Court handles appeals.
• Appeals court characteristics include: First, as a legal court, it mainly examines the appropriateness of legal interpretation and application. Second, it's not a fact-finding court, so new evidence investigation is generally not conducted. Third, appeal grounds are limited to legal violations or constitutional violations that affected the decision. Fourth, appeals court is discretionary, allowing the Supreme Court to select and review cases at its discretion.
• Recently, appeal cases have rapidly increased, adding to the Supreme Court's workload burden. This is one of the main backgrounds for Supreme Court justice expansion discussions. Expansion supporters argue that securing an appropriate number of justices is necessary for efficient appeals court operations.

5️⃣ Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: Is Supreme Court justice expansion really necessary?

A: Opinions are sharply divided on the necessity of Supreme Court justice expansion. Supporters argue that expansion is unavoidable to solve work overload from rapidly increasing appeal cases and improve decision quality through specialized area review strengthening. It's true that each justice handles about 300 cases annually, which is excessively high compared to developed countries. Also, as cases requiring expertise in economics, science and technology, and intellectual property increase, the need for specialized justices is growing. However, opponents argue that problems can be solved through other methods like strengthening lower courts, tightening appeal requirements, or expanding dedicated research staff for justices, rather than increasing justice numbers. They also worry that sudden large-scale expansion poses great risks to judicial independence. Therefore, if expansion is necessary, a gradual and careful approach would be preferable.

Q: Will trials become more fair if there are more justices?

A: The impact of increasing justices on trial fairness is complex. Positively, more justices participating could enable more balanced judgments by reflecting diverse perspectives and experiences. Also, specialized justices by field could make accurate judgments based on deep understanding of relevant areas. Securing sufficient review time could improve decision quality through careful and detailed examination. However, there are negative aspects too. If there are too many justices, opinion coordination could become difficult, actually delaying decisions or reducing consistency. Also, if many new justices are appointed in a short time, rapid changes in existing precedents could damage legal stability. Most important is not the number of justices but their expertise, independence, and fairness. Therefore, if expansion occurs, selecting excellent talent and securing political neutrality will become even more important.