The article, written by Min Kyung-han, a lawyer and former chairman of the Human Rights Committee of the Korean Bar Association, explores the long-standing issues surrounding the Supreme Court's functioning in South Korea. It outlines attempts to reform the appellate system over the past decades, introducing measures like the permit system for appeals and special appellate courts, most of which faced collapse due to various complications. Recently, the National Assembly's Judicial Committee has approved a proposal to increase the number of Supreme Court justices from 14 to 26 over three years, suggesting an addition of four justices each year. However, the Supreme Court President criticized this move, warning that such an increase could worsen lower court conditions and lead to significant public inconvenience.

The opposition from the Supreme Court has been rooted in concerns about the operational efficiency of an expanded bench, arguing that with more justices, the collective hearings might become unmanageable, which could compromise the uniformity of legal interpretation. Despite this stance, there appears to be some concession under public pressure, with the proposal being modified to suggest four justices as a compromise. Critics argue that such a minimal increase fails to adequately relieve the case burden faced by current justices and contend that the justifications provided by the Supreme Court lack reasonable and valid logical foundations.

Min highlights the Supreme Court's current staffing structure, mentioning the presence of 24 dedicated legal researchers, alongside over 100 general researchers reviewing all pending cases. He emphasizes that even with an increase in justices, the total number of appeal cases would remain constant, thus questioning the necessity for additional research personnel. Min argues that moving 36 judges from lower courts to the Supreme Court over three years, from a total pool of around 3,200 judges, would not severely impact lower court functions, challenging the narrative that such a move would degrade judicial quality. He calls for a more rational discussion around the funding and resources needed to enhance judicial performance, rather than undermining the proposed increase of justices with perceived irrational fears.