President Lee Jae-myung has rejected Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae's recommendation to fill a vacant seat on the country's top court, an unusual public break from the customary coordination between the presidential office and the judiciary over who sits on the bench.
The vacancy dates back to March, when Justice Noh Tae-ak retired, leaving the 14-member court short a seat. Chief Justice Cho submitted his written recommendation on August 18, naming Son Bong-gi, a senior judge at the Daegu District Court, but Cheong Wa Dae announced its rejection on Thursday, declining to send the appointment consent motion on to the National Assembly and asking the Chief Justice to put forward an alternative candidate instead.
The Reason Given
Presidential spokesperson Kang Yu-jung said the recommendation failed to fully meet procedural requirements, a technical framing for a decision that nonetheless represents a significant assertion of presidential authority over judicial appointments. The vacancy has now stretched past five months, longer than these gaps typically last, and it will remain open at least until a new recommendation clears both the president and, eventually, the legislature.
An Unsettled Legal Question
The dispute sits in a genuine gray area. Under the constitutional framework governing justice appointments, the president appoints Supreme Court justices upon the chief justice's recommendation, subject to National Assembly consent, but neither the Constitution nor the Court Organization Act explicitly addresses whether the president can simply reject that recommendation outright. Lee's decision to do so, rather than send it on with reservations, tests a boundary that the two branches have not typically had reason to define.
A Strained Relationship
The rejection lands on top of what has reportedly been a strained relationship between Lee and Cho, and this episode is likely to deepen it. A president publicly turning back a chief justice's nominee is a rare enough event that it reads as a signal in itself, regardless of how the procedural dispute is ultimately resolved. With no clear precedent to fall back on, how quickly the two sides settle on a replacement nominee may say as much about the state of relations between Cheong Wa Dae and the judiciary as the original disagreement did.