Rebuilding Korea Party unveils impeachment motion against South Korea’s chief justice

The Rebuilding Korea Party unveiled a draft motion at South Korea’s National Assembly on October 19 to impeach Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae, seeking the ruling Democratic Party’s support for a step that could suspend the head of the judiciary if lawmakers pass it. The Democratic Party is gathering views and has not decided whether to introduce the motion.

The small opposition party proposed a joint task force and a joint meeting of lawmakers with the Democratic Party, SBS News reported. Its leader, Shin Jang-sik, argued that Cho should not remain in office, saying: “Leaving him as he is, we have no justification to tell the public to abide by the law.” The allegation of wrongdoing is the party’s, not an established finding.

What the impeachment motion alleges

SBS reported that the financial allegations concern encouragement bonuses and business operating expenses. These are grounds advanced by the Rebuilding Korea Party, rather than findings against the chief justice.

How the parties have responded

Democratic Party spokesperson Cho Gye-won said the party was gathering lawmakers’ opinions. SBS reported that it would decide its response after the parliamentary audit. The Korea Herald said the ruling party had pressed Cho to resign, while some of its lawmakers argued there were grounds to impeach him.

People Power Party leader Jang Dong-hyeok opposed the move, calling it a “parliamentary coup” that would paralyze the Supreme Court, according to SBS. The dispute now turns on whether the Democratic Party moves from discussing impeachment to joining a formal motion.

The Rebuilding Korea Party holds 12 seats in the 300-member National Assembly, far short of the one-third support The Korea Herald said is needed to propose an impeachment motion. The paper said passage would require a majority vote with more than half of lawmakers present; Cho would then be suspended until the Constitutional Court ruled. It also reported that this is the party’s second draft motion against him and that no motion had previously been floated.