Yesterday, news emerged that the Supreme Court had referred a case to the full bench.
You may wonder, “Doesn’t a Supreme Court case normally involve all the justices?”
No. Most cases that reach the Supreme Court are concluded by a panel of four justices. The full bench is the exception, and there are specified conditions for a case to be treated as an exception.
3-line summary
1. The full bench hears cases with 13 justices
2. Ordinary cases are concluded by panels of 4 justices
3. A referral itself is not a conclusion; it is a method of review
In practice, the principle and exception are reversed
First, a brief note on what the Supreme Court does. After the facts have been litigated in the first and second trials, the Supreme Court is the final destination for an appeal from a judgment. This stage is called a final appeal, and it examines whether the law was properly applied, rather than reassessing the facts.
Article 7 of the Court Organization Act provides that the Supreme Court’s adjudicative authority is, in principle, exercised by a collegial body attended by at least two-thirds of all Supreme Court justices. The Chief Justice presides.
However, the same provision includes a proviso. A “panel” composed of at least 3 justices may first review a case and, if its members agree, may decide the case itself.
Under the statutory text, the full bench is the principle and panels are the exception, but the system operates in the opposite way. According to the Supreme Court’s explanation, the Supreme Court consists of 14 justices and has three panels, and most cases that come before it are concluded by those panels.
There is only one condition for a case to end at a panel: the panel justices’ views must not diverge. If even one justice reaches a different conclusion, the case cannot be completed at the panel level.
It is not difficult to see why this structure is necessary. It would be impossible for all thirteen justices to read and discuss every case that reaches the Supreme Court. Cases are therefore divided for processing, with a mechanism to separately identify cases that should not be handled separately.
Why 13 when there are 14?
The Supreme Court consists of 14 justices, including the Chief Justice. But when the full bench is discussed, the number usually cited is 13.
That is because one of the justices also serves as the Minister of National Court Administration. This position handles administrative matters such as court operations and personnel and does not participate in trials. As a result, the people actually seated are thirteen, including the Chief Justice.
There is a reason to count the number. As discussed below, this court reaches its conclusion by a majority, so the number of justices seated determines how many votes are required.
There are four conditions for referral
Article 7 of the Court Organization Act sets out four circumstances in which a panel cannot decide a case. Put simply, they are as follows.
First, when a government-issued order or rule is considered contrary to the Constitution. Second, when that order or rule is considered contrary to statute. Third, when it is considered necessary to change an interpretation previously established by the Supreme Court. Fourth, when it is considered inappropriate for a panel to decide the case.
The first three standards are relatively clear. What draws attention in practice is the fourth. Because the statute does not define what is “inappropriate,” a determination that a case has extremely high public interest or broad social repercussions falls under this category.
Three things change
It can change precedent. A panel cannot. Reversing an interpretation that the Supreme Court has maintained for a long time is possible only in the full bench. That is why moments when major legal principles change always come through the full bench.
Diverging opinions remain in the written judgment. Article 15 of the Court Organization Act requires Supreme Court judgments to state the opinions of all justices who participated in the deliberation. This means the document discloses the vote count and why dissenting justices dissented. This provision is why terms such as “majority opinion” and “dissenting opinion” appear so frequently only when the full bench delivers a ruling.
It takes longer. Depending on the case, the Court may hold public oral argument, and thirteen justices must each review the matter before reaching agreement, so it takes more time than a panel decision.
Referral is not a conclusion
This is the point most often misunderstood.
Referring a case to the full bench means a decision has been made about how to review the case; it is not a signal that the conclusion is leaning in either direction. It is neither notice that the lower-court judgment will be reversed nor notice that it will be left intact.
The conclusion is ultimately determined by votes. Article 66 of the Court Organization Act provides that collegial adjudication is decided by a majority unless otherwise provided. If thirteen justices are seated, the side with seven votes becomes the judgment.
What case was it this time?
On the 5th, the Supreme Court said it would have the full bench hear the final appeals of two people indicted on charges of engaging in important duties in an insurrection in connection with the 12·3 emergency martial law. The cases involve former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo and former Minister of the Interior and Safety Lee Sang-min.
According to NewsPim, the Supreme Court cited the reasons that “public interest is extremely high, a historical judicial evaluation is needed, and the defendants are co-offenders and therefore need to be heard together.” Earlier, the appellate court sentenced former Prime Minister Han to 15 years in prison and former Minister Lee to 9 years in prison. A sentencing date has not yet been set.
Two things that remain in a full-bench judgment
If no hearing date has been set, it is reasonable to expect that reaching a conclusion may take several months. Most interpretations concerning a “referral to the full bench” during that time are speculation.
There are two things to check on the day the ruling is delivered: the vote count, and whether any part of existing precedent was changed. Both must be written in the judgment, so they can be verified directly later as well.
The full bench convenes when the Supreme Court determines, “This is not a case for four people to conclude quietly.” That determination itself is not the conclusion. The conclusion comes in the sentences that thirteen justices leave under their own names.
References
- National Law Information Center, “Court Organization Act,” Articles 7, 15, and 66 https://www.law.go.kr/법령/법원조직법
- Supreme Court of Korea, “Organization of the Courts — Supreme Court” https://www.scourt.go.kr/judiciary/organization/supreme/index.html
- NewsPim, “Supreme Court Refers Final Appeals in Han Duck-soo and Lee Sang-min ‘Insurrection Charges’ Case to Full Bench” https://www.newspim.com/news/view/20260805001298
- Yonhap News Agency, “Han Duck-soo and Lee Sang-min Insurrection Case Before Supreme Court Full Bench… ‘Historical Judicial Evaluation’” (2026-08-05)