hankyoreh

Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Yang Sung-tae (second from left) and former Supreme Court Justice Park Byung-dae (third from the left) are the prime suspects in allegations of influence-peddling and judicial misconduct under the Park Geun-hye administration. (Lee Jeong-a

Evidence has emerged to suggest the Supreme Court under previous Chief Justice Yang Sung-tae examined legal documents from South Korea’s biggest law firm Kim & Chang when it represented a Japanese company implicated in war crimes in a trial related to forced labor during the Japanese occupation. After reviewing an opinion from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressing concerns about damaging effects on South Korea-Japan relations, the court also advised the company facing a suit demanding damages to “submit documents beneficial for its case” and offered revisions.

Suggesting that the ostensibly impartial Supreme Court colluded with third parties (the Blue House and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and the accused Japanese company’s counsel (Kim & Chang) while ignoring the arguments of the victims, the revelations are expected to have significant repercussions.

On Dec. 3, a Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office’s investigative team (headed by third assistant prosecutor general Han Dong-hoon) on the judicial influence scandal requested arrest warrants for former Supreme Court Justices Park Byung-dae and Ko Young-han – marking the first time in South Korean judicial history that warrants on criminal charges have been requested for former justices of the Supreme Court.

According to the Hankyoreh’s investigation, the arrest warrants for Park and Ko made reference to Im Jong-heon, former National Court Administration deputy director and then-planning and coordination office chief, meeting with Han Sang-ho, the attorney heading Kim & Chang’s litigation team, in May 2015. Im is mentioned as having shared guidelines with Han on drafting an opinion that he wished to see submitted to the Supreme Court by Kim & Chang.

An examination of Im’s actual indictments shows that the National Court Administration ran through lawsuit stalling scenarios around the same time after communicating with the second vice minister of foreign affairs and others. Specifically, the sequence involved 1) responding to a “government opinion request” from the defendants’ team by 2) passing along to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, after which 3) the ministry would submit examples to the Supreme Court of other countries addressing issues of postwar compensation and 4) the new issues would be used as an opportunity to refer the case for an en banc ruling by the court.

Im and Han’s meeting appears to have been related to the first phase of this stage. At the time, Im passed along guidelines to Han recommending the drafting of an opinion, while Kim & Chang reportedly drafted a “request for a Ministry of Foreign Affairs opinion” and received a preliminary review by Im.

Im reportedly advised changing the words “request for” in the document’s title to “insistence on,” while including additional guidelines advising reference to amended Supreme Court civil litigation guidelines. On Oct. 6 the following year, Kim & Chang submitted a document to the Supreme Court “insisting on” a ministry opinion, which the ministry provided to the court on Nov. 29.

The details were reportedly learned by prosecutors when they conducted a Nov. 12 raid on the office of Kim & Chang attorney Kwak Byung-hoon, who served as Blue House secretary for legal affairs during the Park administration. Analysis of confiscated materials also showed Yang to have met at least three times with Han between 2015 and 2016 in his Supreme Court office and at restaurants. Prosecutors believe Han would meet with Im on “main points” concerning the trial, and then meet with Yang afterwards to confirm his “intentions.”

By Kim Yang-jin and Choi Woo-ri, staff reporters

Please direct comments or questions to [english@hani.co.kr]