Why did Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae reject the presidential office’s request for a new recommendation?

Cho said the official request did not present clear grounds or reasoning and that he could not find constitutional or legal justification for complying. He added that the reported reason for a procedural flaw was difficult to accept under the Constitution and legal regulations.

What did Cheong Wa Dae say about the justice nomination process?

The presidential office said it asked for a new recommendation because the nomination lacked procedural completeness. It also said the chief justice’s claim that the reason for the request was unclear was misleading.

How does South Korea’s Supreme Court justice appointment process work?

The Constitution gives the process to all three branches of government. The chief justice recommends candidates, the National Assembly conducts confirmation hearings and gives consent, and the president formally appoints the justices.

Chief justice rejects alleged procedural flaw in Supreme Court nomination

Listen

Summary

Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae rejected the presidential office’s claim of a procedural flaw in the nomination of a top court justice on Wednesday in Seoul. He said the requested re-recommendation lacked clear grounds in the official document and could not be justified under the Constitution and legal regulations. Cheong Wa Dae pushed back, saying the process lacked procedural completeness and urging quick follow-up to avoid affecting the public’s right to trial. Cho also apologized for the prolonged vacancy in the Supreme Court.

Key Facts

Last month, Cheong Wa Dae asked Cho to recommend a new candidate after objecting to his written recommendation of one of two Supreme Court justice nominees to President Lee Jae Myung.
Cho said Tuesday that he could not comply with the request because he found no specific reasons or constitutional grounds to do so.
A senior presidential official said the Constitution would be violated if the president were required to accept the chief justice’s recommendation, because that would effectively let the chief justice appoint justices himself.
Under the Constitution, the chief justice recommends candidates, the National Assembly holds confirmation hearings and gives consent, and the president formally appoints the justices.

By Yonhap

Published Sep 23, 2026 1:37 pm KST
Updated Sep 23, 2026 5:41 pm KST

Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae, second from right, arrives at the Supreme Court in Seocho District, Seoul, Wednesday. Yonhap

Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae on Wednesday rejected the presidential office's claim of a procedural flaw in the nomination of a top court justice, a day after refusing a request to make a new recommendation.

Last month, Cheong Wa Dae asked Cho to recommend a new candidate after taking issue with his written recommendation of one of two Supreme Court justice nominees to President Lee Jae Myung.

Cho said Tuesday that he could not comply with the request, citing a lack of specific reasons or constitutional grounds to do so. He clarified his stance in a statement Wednesday after his comments sparked varying interpretations.

"Clear grounds and reasoning must be presented in the text of the official document so that there is no dispute in its validity and to proceed in accordance with the Constitution and the law," he said.

"The reason for a procedural flaw in the nomination process, as reported by media, is difficult to accept when viewed in terms of the Constitution and legal regulations."

Presidential spokesperson Kang Yu-jung earlier said the presidential office requested a new recommendation as it lacked "procedural completeness."

Cho also apologized for the drawn-out vacancy in the Supreme Court, pledging efforts to swiftly resolve the issue.

In response to Cho's renewed objections, Cheong Wa Dae accused the chief justice of misleading the public by claiming that the reason for Lee's request for a new recommendation was unclear. It urged Cho to move quickly with the necessary follow-up procedures to ensure that the public's right to a trial is not affected.

"Interpreting the Constitution as requiring the president to accept the chief justice's recommendation would effectively amount to allowing the chief justice to appoint Supreme Court justices himself," a senior presidential official said. "Such an interpretation would be unconstitutional because it would effectively strip the president, who is elected by the people, of his appointment authority."

Under the Constitution, the appointment of Supreme Court justices involves all three branches of government under a system of checks and balances. The chief justice recommends candidates, the National Assembly holds confirmation hearings and gives its consent, and the president formally appoints them.

Explore More