▲ Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae arrives at the court in southern Seoul on Sept. 23, 2026. (Yonhap)

(ATTN: UPDATES with presidential office's response, background in last three paras)

SEOUL, Sept. 23 (Yonhap) -- Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae on Wednesday rejected the presidential office's claim of a procedural flaw in the nomination of a top court justice, a day after refusing a request to make a new recommendation.

Last month, Cheong Wa Dae asked Cho to recommend a new candidate after taking issue with his written recommendation of one of two Supreme Court justice nominees to President Lee Jae Myung.

Cho said Tuesday that he could not comply with the request, citing a lack of specific reasons or constitutional grounds to do so. He clarified his stance in a statement Wednesday after his comments sparked varying interpretations.

"Clear grounds and reasoning must be presented in the text of the official document so that there is no dispute in its validity and to proceed in accordance with the Constitution and the law," he said.

"The reason for a procedural flaw in the nomination process, as reported by media, is difficult to accept when viewed in terms of the Constitution and legal regulations."

Presidential spokesperson Kang Yu-jung earlier said the presidential office requested a new recommendation as it lacked "procedural completeness."

Cho also apologized for the drawn-out vacancy in the Supreme Court, pledging efforts to swiftly resolve the issue.

In response to Cho's renewed objections, Cheong Wa Dae accused the chief justice of misleading the public by claiming that the reason for Lee's request for a new recommendation was unclear. It urged Cho to move quickly with the necessary follow-up procedures to ensure that the public's right to a trial is not affected.

"Interpreting the Constitution as requiring the president to accept the chief justice's recommendation would effectively amount to allowing the chief justice to appoint Supreme Court justices himself," a senior presidential official said. "Such an interpretation would be unconstitutional because it would effectively strip the president, who is elected by the people, of his appointment authority."

Under the Constitution, the appointment of Supreme Court justices involves all three branches of government under a system of checks and balances. The chief justice recommends candidates, the National Assembly holds confirmation hearings and gives its consent, and the president formally appoints them.

(END)

[ⓒ K-VIBE. 무단전재-재배포 금지]