Lee Jun-seok "Procedural Flaws in Transition to Emergency Committee"... People Power Party "No Problem at All"

Intense Battle in Court for 1 Hour

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Yoo Byung-don] The hearing on the injunction application to suspend the effectiveness of the Emergency Response Committee's launch, filed by former People Power Party (PPP) leader Lee Jun-seok, concluded after an intense one-hour battle. Former leader Lee and the PPP engaged in fierce legal disputes over the legitimacy of the Emergency Response Committee system.

The Civil Division 51 of the Seoul Southern District Court (Chief Presiding Judge Hwang Jeong-su) held a hearing at 3 p.m. on the 17th regarding the injunction application filed by former leader Lee on the 10th against the PPP and Emergency Response Committee Chairman Joo Ho-young.

Former leader Lee attended the hearing in person along with legal representatives including lawyers Lee Byung-chul and Kang Jae-gyu. On the PPP side, lawyers Hwang Jeong-geun and Hong Seong-chil were present.

Lee’s side argued, "The PPP party constitution allows for the launch of an Emergency Response Committee when the party leader is absent or the Supreme Council loses its function due to an emergency, but this is not such a situation."

In response, the PPP side countered, "The party leader’s term is two years, but the suspension of authority for six months constitutes an emergency situation," adding, "With five Supreme Council members, including Assemblywoman Bae Hyun-jin, declaring their resignation, the Supreme Council’s function should also be considered lost."

Furthermore, both sides clashed over the appropriateness of the agenda approval process at the Standing National Committee and National Committee meetings held prior to the transition to the Emergency Response Committee system. Lee’s side claimed, "Assemblywomen Bae Hyun-jin and Yoon Young-seok declared their resignation from the Supreme Council but participated in the Supreme Council vote held on the 2nd," and argued, "Since the resignation declaration is a unilateral act without the other party, the resignation effect should be considered effective immediately upon declaration, so the Supreme Council’s decision made after their attendance has procedural defects."

Regarding this, the PPP side rebutted, "The resignation of Supreme Council members takes effect from the time the party receives a resignation letter via phone, fax, or direct submission," and stated, "Announcing resignation intentions on personal social media or to the press cannot be legally recognized as resignation."

Additionally, Lee’s side pointed out procedural defects concerning the National Committee meeting held on the 9th, which was conducted via YouTube and where voting was done through an automated response system (ARS). Lee’s side explained, "The PPP considered YouTube viewers or ARS respondents as the quorum and did not guarantee any right to debate."

However, the PPP side stated, "Given the serious resurgence of COVID-19 and the heavy concentrated rainfall in the metropolitan area, it was deemed inappropriate for all National Committee members to gather in person, so the meeting was held remotely," adding, "The presidential candidate nomination last December was also conducted using the same ARS method without any issues."

The court will listen to both parties’ opinions, examine procedural and substantive defects in the Emergency Response Committee’s launch process, and then issue a decision on the injunction application. The court said, "We will carefully consider and make a decision soon," but added, "We will not make a decision today."