대법원의 조직과 재판 유형에 관한 일고찰

The modern judicial system, centering around the independence of the judiciary from the executive branch, began to be introduced in Korea after the Gabo Reform in 1894 and the Eulmi Reform in 1895. Due to the invasion of Japanese imperialism, the modern judicial system was not properly established, and the judicial system was reorganized to function efficiently for colonial rule. After liberation, measures were taken during the U.S. Military Government period to overcome the judicial system of the Japanese colonial era. On September 13, 1948, with the complete transfer of judicial authority from the U.S. Military Government, Kim Byung-ro, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was inaugurated, marking the official establishment of the modern judicial system of the Republic of Korea. However, after the May 16 military coup in 1961, the status of the judiciary was significantly undermined by the military government. The judicial system underwent a normalization process, which is symbolized by the restoration of the title “Supreme Court Justice” through the 1987 constitutional amendment, driven by the civil democratization movement. The Supreme Court has been composed of the Chief Justice and 13 Justices (including the Director of the Court Administration Office) since February 1988; however, from December 2005 to December 2007, the Director of the Court Administration Office was excluded, and thus, the Supreme Court was composed of 12 Justices. In addition, since March 1989, the Supreme Court has adopted a 13-member en banc trial system in principle, while also operating smaller panels composed of four Justices. Since September 1994, it has also implemented a system of dismissal without substantive explanation of reason. The organizational structure of the Supreme Court and the appellate system, as described above, have been maintained to this day, and all Chief Justices since Yoon Kwan, the 12th Chief Justice, have completed their six-year terms in full. After liberation, the Supreme Court has gone trough trial and error, experimenting with various organizational structures and the appellate systems, ultimately settling on a model that has lasted for more than 30 years. The Supreme Court, the highest court, was examined in terms of both the organization and the types of trials. In terms of its organization, the historical process through which the current system was formed, the current situation, its evaluation, and the improvements within the necessary scope were reviewed. In terms of the types of trials, the trials conducted in the Supreme Court were examined by classifying them into single-judge trials, single-instance trials, panel trials, en banc trials, and public hearings. As a result of the review, the following points can be pointed out. A system in which a written statement of grounds for the final appeal is submitted to the original court needs to be introduced to enable the Supreme Court to extend the substantive period to review whether there are grounds to proceed with the trial and focus on the deliberation and judgment on the merits of the case. From the public’s perspective, as it is most desirable to conclude the dispute through a single trial, increasing the number of judges and strengthening the fact-finding trials are fundamental solutions. Despite the legal provisions on the term of office for Supreme Court Justices, which should be appointed for a six-year term of office(within the retirement age of 70), and whose term may be renewed as prescribed by Act, the term of office for Supreme Court Justices, in practice, functions as a single-term system. Considering that the appointment process of Supreme Court Justices requires the National Assembly confirmation hearings and consent procedures to enhance democratic legitimacy, the six-year term of office can be considered short. Therefore, it is necessary to consider either abolishing the reappointment system and extending the term of office or introducing a retirement system with no term limit; however, it is questionable whether such urgency truly exists since this requires a constitutional amendment. As the number of election lawsuits has increased excessively compared to what was planned when election lawsuits were designed under a single-instance system by the Supreme Court, there is a need to review the option of assigning election lawsuits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the high courts. It can be confirmed that the Supreme Court trials are influenced by whether the Supreme Court is composed of Justices with diverse experiences and tendencies or is uniformly composed of senior judges. The Supreme Court should be composed of Justices with diverse experiences, expertise, values, and tendencies. Each panel composed of four Justices should be gender-balanced, as much as possible, and include at least one Justice from the private sector with no experience as a judge or prosecutor to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the case. When Justices with different areas of expertise form each panel, more thorough and accurate judgments can be made by examining the relevant field with expertise. In terms of trial management, there is also a need to increase the number of en banc trials and public hearings. Under both Yang Seung-tae Court and Kim Myeong-su Court, the Supreme Court handed down approximately 20 en banc decisions per year. While this appears to be close to the maximum considering the Supreme Court’s caseload and workload, it is believed that, with more efficient deliberation, the number could be increased to 25 to 30 cases a year or 150 to 180 cases over a six-year term. Holding two public hearings on en banc cases each year is desirable to persuade the public and restore trust in the judiciary. This article was written based on the assumption that the decision to cancel the arrest warrant against defendant Yoon Seok-yeol (Seoul Central District Court, March 7, 2025, 2025chogi619 Order) and the Supreme Court en banc decision on the Public Official Election Act violation case against defendant Lee Jae-myung (Supreme Court, May 1, 2025, 2025do4697 en banc decision) had not yet been pronounced. The demand for fundamental reform of the Supreme Court's organization and the appellate system as a whole, which has been raised after the decision to cancel the detention of defendant Yoon Seok-yeol and the Supreme Court's en banc decision on defendant Lee Jae-myung, requires separate review. I will discuss this topic at another opportunity.