[ad_1]
The conflict between the Minister of Justice, Choo Mi-ae, and the attorney general, Yoon Seok-yeol, was eventually brought to trial.
The interrogation of the stay of execution requested by President Yoon in response to the exclusion provision of Minister Chu will take place at the hearing of the 4th administrative division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Deputy Judge Jo Mi- yeon) at 11 am on the 30th. Stay of enforcement is a court decision to temporarily suspend enforcement of the order if it is deemed that there is a risk of harm that is difficult to recover due to the disposition of the administrative agency. Therefore, the trial for the stay of execution is different from the main trial that was held later.
Previously, Minister Chu filed a claim for disciplinary action against President Yoon and a dismissal from his job, and filed it on the basis of six counts of misconduct. In the main lawsuit, the details are highly controversial, but the suspension judgment focuses on whether or not President Yoon has experienced “difficulties in recovering damages” as a result of the exclusion from duties. Furthermore, there is a high possibility that the hearing will focus on whether the labor exclusion provision was carried out in accordance with legal procedure.
The legal community is giving importance to the possibility of the court citing stay of execution. This is because, in the case of fierce disputes between the two parties, in many cases, in the case of stay of execution, the application is cited and the rights and interests of the plaintiff are guaranteed in many cases.
Unless Minister Chu’s side clarifies that Yun’s exclusion is reasonable enough to rule out a reasonable doubt, the court may temporarily suspend Yun’s exclusion and return him to the office.
The main problem is expected to be the suspicion of the “judge’s inspection” that was revealed for the first time in the process of eliminating the job exclusion among President Yoon’s positions. Yoon’s position is that they only collected general information about the courts to ensure the smooth execution of the trial, but Minister Chu faces that there is no difference from illegal inspections during the authoritarian regime, and that the dismissal of functions is inevitable. .
Some observers have observed that there is the possibility that the judiciary will try to maintain the effect of administrative provisions rather than evoke new political and social waves by accepting a request for stay of execution in a tight situation where it is difficult to know enough about the case due to time constraints.
It should also be noted that even if the court decides on trial day to return President Yoon to his office, the effect can be practically limited to two days. This is because if the disciplinary committee held two days after the questioning decides on severe disciplinary action, such as dismissal, firing, or suspension, President Yoon will again be removed from office.
The court decided on the 27th, two days after President Yoon’s request to stay the execution, and the court in charge of the court hastily decided the date of the hearing. It is noted that the court will proceed with the hearing as soon as possible in recognition of the importance and urgency of the matter. Consequently, there are high expectations that the decision of the judiciary will be made as soon as the day of the questioning or the next day at the latest.
However, the possibility of a delay in hearing cannot be ruled out, as the time to review the records is limited in light of the size and severity of the case. If the judge does not make a decision before disciplinary action, the sentence can be thrown out because the sentence has no real benefit.
If this happens, there is a possibility that the court battle will enter the second round, as Yoon filed a lawsuit to cancel the disciplinary action and a further request for stay of execution based on the disciplinary outcome.
Reporter Kwon Nam-young [email protected]
[ad_2]
