Home > Opinion > Columns

‘Shut up and reform the judiciary’? It could lead to a legal disaster.

Published: 27 Oct. 2025, 00:02

Cheong Chul-gun

The author is a columnist at the JoongAng Ilbo.

Among retail investors, Samyang Foods has recently earned the nickname “Myeonvidia,” a play on Nvidia, the chip giant. The ramyeon maker’s global hit, Buldak Ramyeon, pushed its stock price to a record 1.665 million won in September. Now, the company is reintroducing a beef tallow-based product 36 years after discontinuing it in the wake of the 1989 industrial tallow scandal. That scandal began with a prosecution probe in November 1989, when Samyang was accused of using industrial-grade beef tallow — considered unfit for consumption in the United States — to make its noodles.

I covered the judiciary from early 1993 to late 1998. When assigned to a new court beat, reporters received what is known as a “genealogy,” or a record of key ongoing cases. The Samyang case remained on that list throughout my tenure. In January 1994, the company was convicted in the first trial, only to be acquitted on appeal in July 1995. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal on Aug. 26, 1997.

The Supreme Court building in Seocho District, Seoul. [YONHAP]

I attended many of the 22 hearings. Because of frequent judicial reshuffling, the judges constantly changed. During the first trial alone, three presiding and six associate judges were replaced. Each time, Samyang had to re-explain thousands of pages of evidence. Though the company was cleared, it was driven to the brink of bankruptcy by years of litigation. The late chairman, Jeon Jung-yun, considered suing the government for damages worth several hundred billion won but dropped the idea after his lawyer warned that filing might force him into exile.

Now the Democratic Party (DP) has announced a judicial reform plan to expand the number of Supreme Court justices from 14 to 26. The party says the goal is to ease the heavy caseload and reduce delays that inconvenience the public. Party leader Jung Chung-rae has also proposed introducing a “judicial appeal” system that would allow citizens to challenge final Supreme Court rulings before the Constitutional Court — essentially creating a fourth level of review.

Let us put aside the political debate over whether this amounts to “judicial control by political power” and focus instead on practical implications. Would increasing the number of justices and adding a new appeal layer actually improve efficiency and judicial fairness, as the DP claims? Expanding the bench by 12 would require at least 100 new judges. Currently, 101 research judges assist the 12 Supreme Court justices, excluding the chief justice and the head of the National Court Administration.

If the judicial appeal system is added, the number of petitions filed with the Constitutional Court would soar. Experts say at least nine additional constitutional judges would be needed to handle the workload. Considering that 70 research officers now assist the nine judges, many midlevel judges from lower courts would have to be reassigned to staff the new system.

Such a drain of experienced judges would not merely weaken local courts — it could paralyze them, triggering what might be called a “judicial disaster.” That would fuel dissatisfaction with court rulings and deepen public distrust in the judiciary, ultimately turning public anger toward the government that forced the change. Currently, civil cases that go all the way to the Supreme Court take an average of three years to conclude. Constitutional complaints take about two years and two months to resolve, and constitutional review requests take roughly two years and four months. If another layer of appeal were added, ordinary citizens could find themselves tied up in lawsuits for more than five years. Longer trials favor those with wealth and power; the weak simply give up under the weight of time and cost.

An official from the conservative People Power Party, left, holds a sign calling for President Yoon Suk Yeol's reinstatement, while a member of the liberal Democratic Party, right, holds a sign calling for his removal from office in front of the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on March 23. [JOONGANG ILBO]

“Judges are not gods — they are human and make mistakes,” Rep. Jung said at a party leadership meeting on Oct. 22. That is true. But politicians are not gods either. If they succumb to the illusion that majority rule grants absolute authority and push through reckless reforms, the outcome will be dire. When legal disputes drag on, rulings grow inconsistent and the system tilts further toward the powerful, can the ruling party bear the responsibility for the judicial chaos it created?

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.