['Budget Poor' Judiciary] Judges Spending Personal Money on On-Site Inspections

Business Travel Expenses Frozen Since 2006
Some Courts Also Address Utility Bill Arrears

"When we go out for on-site verification, we have to work on weekends, but even then, I hesitate because it costs more out of pocket."

The recent phenomenon of 'on-site verification avoidance' spreading among judges is a clear example of how budget issues in the judiciary can affect frontline trials. The impoverished financial execution due to budget shortages not only becomes an obstacle to the prompt trials stipulated by the Constitution but can also infringe on the people's right to receive a fair trial.

[Image source=Beomryul Sinmun]

According to the Court Practice Manual and others, when judges and court officials go on-site trips to verify the claims of the parties involved in a trial or the facts of an allegation, verification travel expenses are paid according to the 'Court Officials Travel Expense Regulations.' If the trip is within the jurisdiction or the distance does not exceed 12 km, and the travel time is less than 4 hours, 10,000 KRW is given. Only for long-distance trips exceeding 4 hours of travel time is 20,000 KRW paid, but if a courtesy vehicle is used, the payment is either not made or halved (10,000 KRW).

The problem is that this regulation has not been revised even once since 2006. A chief judge at a court in the Gyeonggi area explained, "Whether a few years ago or now, about 10,000 KRW is paid, but even to have a cup of coffee with the participating officers who went out for on-site verification together, it costs more out of pocket." While on-site verification cannot be neglected to ascertain substantive truth, travel expenses that do not reflect price changes become a hurdle.

There are even cases where utility bills or allowances are not paid on time and are deferred. A court official in the metropolitan area lamented, "Last fall, I heard that a district court could not pay the electricity bill immediately, resulting in accumulated late fees. Earlier this year, there was also a case where judges' allowances were not paid on time and were paid a month later."

Event budgets are out of the question. A judge at the Seoul Central District Court said, "When the court holds forums or other events, they have to apply within the nationwide integrated budget, so courts inevitably have to be cautious of each other," adding, "There have even been cases where the scale of international events hosting foreign guests was reduced due to budget issues."

Just because there is no money does not mean the court can arbitrarily increase the budget. Constitutionally, the government holds the right to draft and submit the budget, and the National Assembly holds the right to review and finalize the budget. Hong Dae-sik (59, 22nd class), dean of Sogang University Law School and a former judge, emphasized, "Korea has a chronic problem where the budget proportion for knowledge-service-based departments with a high proportion of labor costs is low," adding, "In the AI era, budget fulfillment is essential as technological support is also needed for judges to work efficiently."

Park Su-yeon, Han Su-hyun, Legal Times reporters

※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.