Lee Jin-sook, Chairperson of the Korea Communications Commission, Controversy over 'Two-Person System' and Possibility of Subrogation Claim: Summary of Legal Issues

Legal Basis and Requirements of Right of Reimbursement

Article 2, paragraph 2 of the State Compensation Act stipulates the following: If a public official causes damage to another by violating the law with intent or gross negligence while performing their duties, the state or local government must compensate for that damage, and consequently, may exercise the right of indemnity against the public official. However, for damages resulting from simple negligence (ordinary negligence), the individual public official is exempt from responsibility, and the prerequisite for claiming indemnity must be 'intent or gross negligence'. The Supreme Court has also stated regarding the scope of indemnity that it must be exercised within reasonable limits based on the principle of equitable distribution, considering factors such as the public official's level of contribution, usual conduct, and the state's preventive efforts.

Enforcement of the two-person system and the court's illegal ruling

The Korea Communications Commission operated with only two members, Chairman Lee Jin-sook and Vice Chairman Kim Tae-kyu, out of five standing committee members, three of whom were vacant. In this situation, the commission proceeded with major decisions, including the appointment of directors to the Korea Broadcasting Association, which the courts repeatedly deemed unlawful due to procedural defects. In particular, in March 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal related to the appointment of directors to the Korea Broadcasting Association, thereby affirming the lower court's ruling of illegality. Despite this series of rulings, the chairman continues to assert the legality of the two-member system and has maintained decision-making, which leaves room for interpretation as an act of defiance against clear unlawful precedents.

Whether it constitutes intent or gross negligence

It has not yet been legally determined whether Chairperson Lee Jin-sook's actions meet the requirements of 'intent or gross negligence' under the State Compensation Act regarding the right of recourse. However, many legal experts have expressed strong concerns, and lawyer Son Ji-won from OpenNet predicted, 'If the two-person decision-making continues despite repeated precedents, there may be cases where intent or gross negligence is applied to civil servants, leading to holding them accountable for national compensation.' The chairperson still insists that 'the Korea Communications Commission can be legally operated as a collegial administrative agency with just two members,' but if repeated legal losses and procedural violations accumulate, this could be assessed as a severe breach of duty that goes beyond mere mistakes.

Expert opinions and public reactions

The National Union of Media Workers MBC Headquarters strongly criticized the 'two-person system' of Chairwoman Lee Jin-sook and Vice Chairman Kim Tae-kyu immediately after the Supreme Court's decision, warning that they would not be able to escape legal responsibility for all kinds of illegal acts. Civic groups, including the Citizens' Coalition for Democratic Media, have also defined this system as 'illegal' and have been urging corrections and accountability. However, the legal advisory report from the Board of Audit and Inspection mainly focused on the violation of political neutrality, and there was no direct legal review regarding the right of indemnity itself. Experts assess that the repeated illegal decisions by this chairwoman could ultimately escalate into actions close to intentional state operation.

Limitations of case law and similar cases related to subrogation rights

The Supreme Court precedent related to the right of recourse (e.g., 1991Da6764) mainly focuses on significant errors made by civil servants, and there are currently no known precedents regarding the right of recourse for policy decisions made by heads of administrative agencies. Instances where the right of recourse has been recognized for similar repeated illegal decisions are also rare. However, since Article 2 of the State Compensation Act generally applies to heads of administrative agencies, the possibility of exercising the right of recourse cannot be ruled out if intent or gross negligence is established.

Internal Review and Audit Response

In early 2025, the opposition party in the National Assembly requested an audit from the Board of Audit and Inspection regarding the approval of the 'two-person system' of the Korea Communications Commission. However, the Board stated, "Determining the legality pertains to a matter under litigation, and it is not appropriate for the Board to reach a conclusion," effectively dismissing the request. The Korea Communications Commission announced its intention to cover the litigation costs independently, but since the court has already explicitly pointed out the Commission's illegality, the debate over accountability is likely to persist. So far, no official legal review or report on accountability has been made public within the Korea Communications Commission, and relevant discussions have mainly been raised at the media and civic society levels.

Comprehensive assessment of the possibility of exercising the right of recourse

In summary, under the State Compensation Act and Supreme Court precedents, a claim for reimbursement is legally permissible when intent or gross negligence is recognized. However, certain conditions must be met to actually exercise this right. 1. The court must clearly recognize intent or gross negligence. 2. The state or the victim must have received compensation for damages. 3. The degree of contribution of the public official to the responsibility and fairness must be considered. At this stage, the likelihood of Chairperson Lee Jin-sook's actions leading directly to the exercise of reimbursement rights is low. However, given the circumstances of an established Supreme Court ruling of illegality, if that ruling has caused significant administrative disruption, there is a possibility that intent could be recognized in future rulings.

Conclusion: Responsible Exercise of Authority and Institutional Lessons

This issue goes beyond mere administrative procedure violations and poses fundamental questions about the abuse of power by public officials, legal accountability, and the trustworthiness of the system. Despite repeated illegal decisions, there has been no internal checks to correct them, and the fact that the court is 'steering' this matter should be taken as a very serious institutional signal. Therefore, whether or not to pursue a claim for recourse against Chairperson Lee Jin-sook will depend on the court's judgment in the future. However, this case raises the question of how far the legal responsibilities of civil servants can be extended and will serve as an important opportunity to re-examine the transparency and accountability of public administration.