2024-06-23 14:12:16
Sudden change of courtroom, publicity of privateness, and even revision of bizarre ruling
There are considerations about ‘mistrust within the judiciary’ concerning the divorce and property division attraction courtroom ruling between SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won and Noh So-young, director of the Nabi Artwork Heart, introduced on Could 30. Suspicions of ‘courtroom procuring’ arose from the start of the attraction trial, resulting in a sudden change within the courtroom, and the presiding choose brought on controversy by disclosing the personal lives of these concerned within the case though he was speculated to take note of the particular nature of home circumstances. As well as, a severe error was found within the appellate courtroom’s determination, main the courtroom to appropriate the choice. There may be rising criticism within the authorized neighborhood that the assorted issues that come up at each crucial stage, from appellate courtroom allocations to judgments, are growing mistrust within the judiciary.
Noh So-young’s suspicions of ‘courtroom procuring’
Initially, the attraction trial of Chairman Choi and Director Roh was assigned to the Seoul Excessive Court docket’s Gasa Division 3-1 (Chief Choose Cho Younger-cheol) in January final yr. Chief Choose Cho Younger-cheol is a choose with a popularity for making selections trustworthy to authorized rules. Nevertheless, Director Noh’s aspect immediately appointed Lawyer A from Okay Legislation Agency, the place Chief Choose Cho’s brother-in-law is the consultant lawyer, on February 15 of final yr. If a regulation agency headed by a relative of the presiding choose represents the case, controversy over equity is certain to come up, growing the chance that the case can be reallocated to a different courtroom. The truth is, the Seoul Excessive Court docket’s Gasa Division 3-1 filed a movement to keep away from the trial on February 17 final yr, and the Seoul Excessive Court docket reassigned the case to the Gasa Division 2 (Presiding Choose Kim Si-cheol). Because of this there are suspicions that Director Roh’s aspect has engaged in so-called ‘courtroom procuring’ to alter the courtroom to keep away from Chief Choose Cho. When the case was reallocated, Lawyer A moved to a different regulation agency and continues to deal with Director Roh’s case.
In response to this, Okay Legislation Agency stated, “As a result of the consultant lawyer of our regulation agency and Chief Choose Cho, who was the presiding choose of the attraction trial between Chairman Choi and Director Roh, are brother-in-law and brother-in-law, the lawyer on the agency was unable to tackle this case, and all companion attorneys knew about this. “Nevertheless, Lawyer A arbitrarily submitted to the courtroom, with out the consultant lawyer’s information, a discover of appointment representing Director Noh regardless of the disallowance coverage,” he stated. Okay Legislation Agency added, “On the time Lawyer A submitted the discover of appointment, it was an uncommon scenario during which an appointment contract had not been written and no deposit had been deposited.” Director Noh’s aspect is refuting the suspicions surrounding the change of courtroom, calling them “absurd claims.”
One authorized professional stated, “The fact is that when a judgment is anticipated to be dangerous or the progress of the trial isn’t passable, courtroom procuring is practiced by deliberately avoiding the choice by appointing a regulation agency run by the choose’s relations.” He added, “Trial procuring undermines belief within the judiciary.” “It’s a follow that should be eradicated because it causes mistrust and mistrust within the judiciary,” he stated.
Chief Choose Kim Si-cheol, who handed down the most important property division ruling in historical past value 1.38 trillion received, is being criticized for violating particular person privateness in the course of the sentencing on Could 30. Whereas sentencing this case, Chief Choose Kim defined intimately for about 50 minutes the method of Chairman Choi and Director Roh’s breakup and the method of Chairman Choi’s wealth formation, regardless of the particular nature of a home case that requires privateness. Basically, that is in distinction to when judges pronounce judgments in home circumstances, issuing orders similar to the conclusion and briefly explaining the aim of the judgment. Chief Choose Kim didn’t maintain the sentencing listening to privately, however allowed some reporters into the courtroom. The remaining 50 reporters have been additionally in a position to watch the sentencing within the broadcast courtroom. In consequence, the contents of the judgment containing privateness have been handed on to the skin world.
An official who watched the sentencing on the time stated, “A number of the issues Chief Choose Kim talked about seem to have included quite a lot of subjective judgment quite than goal details.” He added, “If even goal details are revealed publicly, it could possibly be an invasion of privateness, however the choose “It appears unprecedented to disclose even the content material of subjective judgments,” he stated. Concerning this, some within the authorized neighborhood are calling for an inquiry into the scope of the choose’s discretion. It’s because there isn’t a provision in both the Civil Process Act or the Home Litigation Act that the presiding choose can publicly reveal secret private issues. What’s much more severe is that the appellate courtroom’s determination, which was almost 200 pages lengthy, was leaked the day after the decision.
Choi Tae-won’s ruling was revised inside 3 hours of press convention.
Chief Choose Kim’s trial proceedings have been controversial up to now. In 2015, because the Chief Choose of the seventh Prison Division of the Seoul Central District Court docket, he was answerable for the remand trial of former Nationwide Intelligence Service Director Gained Se-hoon’s ‘remark manipulation’ case. On the time, the truth that Chief Choose Kim had written the not responsible verdict upfront and had ready a question-and-answer situation for prosecutors and attorneys to exonerate former Chief Justice Gained was revealed within the ‘former Supreme Court docket Chief Justice Yang Seung-tae suspicion of judicial manipulation’, inflicting controversy. Because the trial progressed and a battle arose with the choose who was presiding on the time, Chief Choose Kim reportedly proceeded with the listening to of former Director Gained in session with one other choose. Chief Choose Kim, who raised controversy over whether or not there was a presumption of innocence, launched former Director Gained on bail in October 2015 and didn’t attain a conclusion on the case till transferring to the sixteenth Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court docket in February 2017. In August 2017, Chief Choose Kim’s successor sentenced former Director Gained to 4 years in jail and positioned him in courtroom custody.
An uncommon scenario occurred the place the courtroom revised the ruling after the appeals courtroom dominated on Chairman Choi and Director Roh. The Seoul Excessive Court docket’s 2nd Division of Household Affairs revised a part of the ruling three hours in a while the afternoon of the identical day, after Chairman Choi claimed at a press convention on the morning of June 17 that “there was a ‘deadly error’ within the means of figuring out the division of property.” “As the worth of SK C&C’s shares was diminished by one-tenth in 1998, when former SK Group Chairman Choi Jong-hyun died, Chairman Choi’s contribution was inflated tenfold from 35.5 instances to 355 instances,” the ruling learn. It was appropriate.
As controversy intensified over errors within the astronomical scale of the property division lawsuit, the 2nd Division of Household Affairs of the Seoul Excessive Court docket distributed an uncommon four-page assertion the next day, June 18. After presenting the ultimate asset division normal between Chairman Choi and Director Roh as ‘SK inventory value of 160,000 received as of April 16 of this yr’, it was revealed that the contribution to this was ‘125 instances that of former Chairman Choi Jong-hyun and 160 instances that of Chairman Choi.’ Subsequently, the courtroom’s place is that the conclusion on property division doesn’t change. They introduced an incomprehensible clarification that though the premises have been completely different, the conclusion was the identical.
In response to this, Chairman Choi’s aspect stated, “Within the ruling, the appellate courtroom calculated the interval during which Chairman Choi’s contribution was thought-about from 1998 to 2009 and set it as 355 instances, after which revised it to 35.6 instances via correction.” The calculation interval was prolonged from 1998 to 2024, and the contribution was defined as 160 instances larger than the corrected ruling. He identified, “We have to make clear our place on whether or not we intend to make further corrections.” A lawyer from Seocho-dong stated, “Because the 2nd Division of Household Affairs of the Seoul Excessive Court docket has already made a ruling, even when there had been a deadly mistake, there would have been no different approach than to appropriate the ruling,” including, “The place assertion launched by the 2nd Division of Household Affairs of the Seoul Excessive Court docket on June 18 is predicated on the logic of the present judgment “By denying and including new logic, it’s basically like writing a brand new ‘simplified ruling,’ which is including to the confusion,” he stated.
*In the event you search and comply with ‘Journal Jin Donga’ and ‘Two Avengers’ on YouTube and portal websites respectively, yow will discover numerous funding data resembling movies along with articles.
[이 기사는 주간동아 1445호에 실렸습니다]
Kim Woo-jeong, Weekly Donga Reporter [email protected]
2024-06-23 14:12:16