[1] Whether Article 27 of the Judicial Disciplinary Act, which provides that the Supreme Court shall judge a case seeking the cancellation of disciplinary action against a judge, infringes the judge's right to trial or the right to equality (negative)

[2] Whether a case disputing the validity of a judge disciplinary decision by a judge disciplinary committee or a case related to a judge disciplinary action falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (affirmative)

[1] Article 27 of the Judicial Disciplinary Act, Articles 11(1), 27(1), 101, and 106(1) of the Constitution / [2] Article 27 of the Judicial Disciplinary Act

Re-appellant

Seoul High Court Order 2007Ra251 dated November 8, 2007

The reappeal is dismissed.

Article 27(1) of the Constitution provides that "All citizens shall have the right to a trial by law" and Article 101 of the Constitution provides that "the judicial power belongs to a court comprised of judges (paragraph (1). The court shall be organized by the Supreme Court and the court at each level (paragraph (2).............) since there are no special provisions regarding the system of a court, the legislative power or legislative discretion is granted to the legislators as to which court system is established in certain cases (see Supreme Court Order 2006Mo646, Dec. 18, 2006; Constitutional Court Order 90Hun-Ba1, Jan. 20, 1995, etc.). The Constitution provides that general public officials shall be guaranteed their status and political neutrality as prescribed by the Constitution (Article 7(2)), while Article 101 provides that "no person shall be subject to impeachment or disciplinary action against a judge, who is subject to a discharge from office or imprisonment without prison labor or more unfavorable."

In full view of the above, Article 27 of the Judicial Disciplinary Act provides that the Supreme Court shall judge a case at a single trial by a judge's request for the revocation of disciplinary action, and at the same time, it is reasonable grounds to ensure the independence and the guarantee of status of the judge by ensuring the status of the judge as soon as possible, and thus, it cannot be said that it infringes the judge's right to trial or the right to equality.

In addition, in light of the above nature and purport of Article 27 of the Judicial Disciplinary Act, it is reasonable to view that not only the case of revocation of disciplinary action by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but also the case of application related to judge disciplinary action is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the provision of Article 27 of the Judicial Disciplinary Act does not violate the Constitution and the lawsuit on the decision of judge disciplinary action filed by the re-appellant with the judge disciplinary committee as defendant belongs to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and there is no violation of the Constitution or misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the result of the

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)