When recommending Supreme Court justices, Cho Hee-dae invokes ‘law and principles’, but says “did not know” about incentive payments and business promotion expenses - 경향신문
This article was translated by an AI tool. Feedback Here.
Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae appears at the National Assembly audit of the Supreme Court held at the Legislation and Judiciary Committee on the 6th and answers questions from lawmakers. Kwon Do-hyun, reporter
Controversy persists over improper incentive payments to Supreme Court justices and false entries concerning business promotion expenses involving Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae. The Board of Audit and Inspection, which first uncovered the matter, reiterated at the National Assembly audit on the 12th that the budget execution was inappropriate. As the explanation from the Court Administration Office of the Supreme Court also diverges from the Board of Audit and Inspection's responses, suspicion about how the execution occurred is growing.
At the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee audit of the Board of Audit and Inspection held on the 12th, questions centered on the accounting audit regarding Chief Justice Cho and the incentive payments and business promotion expenses. Chairman Kim Ho-cheol reaffirmed in his responses that the Supreme Court budget execution was inappropriate.
In August, the Board of Audit and Inspection announced that it had found the Supreme Court had paid Supreme Court justices monthly cash incentives of 2 million to 3 million won from 2022 through April 2024 using the ‘other operating expenses’ budget. It also determined that, using the business promotion expenses budget for the Chief Justice, wine worth 108 million won was purchased from 2022 through last year, with the purpose recorded ambiguously. In recent National Assembly audits, it also came to light that, when high-priced meals were charged to business promotion expenses, the number of attendees was inflated.
When Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Han-kyu asked whether the method of paying incentives was improper, Chairman Kim replied that this was correct. He stated that they had investigated the disbursing officer in charge but could not verify the factual details of how the incentives paid to the justices were used. Regarding the audit findings on wine purchases with business promotion expenses, he also said that the execution was inappropriate and that they cautioned the Supreme Court.
It also emerged that the earlier explanation by the Court Administration Office was incorrect. To the question, ‘Did the Supreme Court agree with the Board of Audit and Inspection to pay incentives on an irregular basis and in non fixed amounts?’, Chairman Kim answered, “There was no such agreement”. In a written response submitted to Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Eui-gyeom's office, the Board of Audit and Inspection stated, “We confirmed that the Chief Justice paid incentives to Supreme Court justices and to the head of the Court Administration Office”. By contrast, on the 6th, Noh Kyung-pil, head of the Court Administration Office, said during the audit that they “consulted with the Board of Audit and Inspection on improvements” regarding the execution of incentives, and Chief Justice Cho had answered that he was not involved in the incentive payments.
Paying incentives in cash to justices is pointed out as a budget control problem for the judiciary. By regularly paying cash from the ‘other operating expenses’ budget, they went beyond the purpose of the budget and effectively used it as salary, according to critics. On this point, even the explanations by Chief Justice Cho and Director Noh diverge. In the previous audit, Chief Justice Cho said, “It is not the Chief Justice who disburses state salaries or incentives”, whereas Director Noh said, “The final decision on paying incentives is made by the Chief Justice”.
At the core of the business promotion expense controversy is the opacity of execution details. According to Supreme Court business promotion expense records submitted to Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Ki-pyo's office, places where meal costs were charged include Japanese restaurants, Korean set-menu restaurants, and hotel Chinese restaurants. These are restaurants where only course menus priced at a minimum of 60,000 to 180,000 won per person can be ordered. However, if calculated based on the headcounts the Supreme Court reported to the National Assembly, the total price would far exceed the amounts spent. This has led some to suspect that, taking advantage of the fact that detailed order items do not appear on accounting receipts, the number of attendees was inflated to reduce the per-person meal cost.
The Court Administration Office maintains that the headcounts were recorded incorrectly due to staff error. It only said that it would make corrections and did not explain in detail how the records were made. During the audit, Chief Justice Cho consistently answered to related questions in the vein of ‘was not involved’. This has prompted criticism that while Chief Justice Cho stresses ‘law and principles’ on the issue of re-recommending candidates for Supreme Court justice, he adopts a stance of not knowing when it comes to controversy over the execution of public funds.
A remark by Chief Justice Cho that could be seen as shifting responsibility to members also drew criticism. On the high cost of meals, he said, “Members dislike gathering often for reasons such as childcare”, and added, “When we meet once in a while, our members wish to try foods they have not been able to eat”.
There are also concerns that this incident harms public trust in the judiciary. Ha Seung-soo, head (attorney) of the civic group ‘Catch Tax Thieves’, said, “It is an awkward situation, since the same problem has occurred within the highest judicial body that must make the final determination on budget execution issues”, adding, “It has been revealed that the judiciary's internal ethics inspection body has played no oversight role at all in budget execution”.
