How to Read a Court Judgment — A One-Line Answer and Its Reasons

A Few Sheets of Paper Sent by Mail

Stains spread across the ceiling of the shop on the lower floor. It was water leaking from the pipes upstairs, and the ceiling and facilities had to be replaced. The shop owner filed a lawsuit against the upstairs homeowner, demanding 100 million won in total for repair costs and damages for the period the shop was closed. A few months later, a document of several pages arrived from the court.

At the top of the first page is a short sentence meaning, "The upstairs homeowner shall pay 70 million won to the shop owner." Below that, a long text spans several pages. The demand was for 100 million won, but it is 70 million won. Why the remaining 30 million won was excluded is written somewhere in the long text below.

This dispute between neighbors was created by this article for the purpose of explanation. A judgment is a document in which the court writes the conclusion of a trial and its reasons. Those few sheets from the court are the judgment. This article looks at South Korean court judgments and deals with the order in which to read those documents. This is a general explanation of South Korean trial procedures, not guidance on what to do in any specific case.

A judgment is easy to read if you view it as a question and an answer. The person who filed the lawsuit threw one question to the court: "Can I receive 100 million won?" The judgment is the court's answer to that question. The short sentence at the very top is the answer, and the long text below it is the reason for giving that answer.

Later, we will also read an actual judgment from top to bottom. This is a judgment handed down by the Supreme Court in 2009 regarding the discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment. Because it is a judgment where Supreme Court justices wrote their different answers side by side in one document, you can see at once what goes into a single judgment.

A judgment is an answer to a question, the answer is at the very top, and the reasons are below it.

Top Single Line, Disposition

Judgments refer to the two people in a lawsuit by their procedural titles. The plaintiff is the party that asked the court for a trial. In this case, it is the shop owner. The defendant is the party that became the opposing side in that trial. In this case, it is the upstairs homeowner.

The disposition is a short set of sentences placed at the very front of the judgment stating the conclusion of the trial. The first line of the disposition in the hypothetical judgment is "The defendant shall pay 70,000,000 won to the plaintiff." Viewed as a question and answer, the disposition is the answer. To the question "Can I receive 100 million won?", the court answered, "You can receive up to 70 million won." In actual dispositions, lines stating who will pay the trial costs may be added further, as in the life-sustaining treatment judgment we will see later.

The second line of the disposition is the answer regarding the remaining 30,000,000 won. Dismissal means that the court does not accept a request such as a claim. The second line, "The plaintiff's remaining claim is dismissed," means that out of the 100 million won, the 30 million won exceeding 70 million won was not accepted. Therefore, the meaning of the disposition becomes clearer when read alongside what the plaintiff claimed. The law also requires the judgment document to record "the purport of the claim," meaning what the plaintiff claimed, together with the disposition (Civil Procedure Act Article 208, Paragraph 1) (민사소송법 제208조 제1항).

The disposition is the answer to the claim, and when placed alongside the claim, it reveals what the court accepted and what it did not accept.

The Long Text Below It, and Why

The reason is the part that writes down why the ruling came out that way. In a virtual judgment, content like this goes in. The fact that water leaked from the upstairs pipes and ruined the store's ceiling and equipment, the fact that some of the ruined equipment was already old regardless of the leak, and the judgment that the damage caused by the leak is therefore seen as up to 70 million won. Because this is a judgment made by this text, it does not write down which legal provisions were applied. In an actual judgment, the law applied by the court goes in that spot.

The law calls a judgment a written judgment, and has set what must be written in a written judgment. A civil written judgment writes the parties, the ruling, the gist of the claim, the reason, the date the oral argument closed, and the court, and the judging judge signs and seals it (Civil Procedure Act Article 208, Paragraph 1). The reason displays judgments regarding the parties' arguments and other offensive and defensive methods to the extent that it can be recognized that the ruling is justified (Civil Procedure Act Article 208, Paragraph 2). This means it must be written enough so that the person reading it can follow along thinking, "So that is why this ruling was made."

Criminal trials are the same framework. A judgment must be made as a written trial document authored by a judge (Criminal Procedure Act Article 38), and the reason must be stated in the trial (Criminal Procedure Act Article 39). Decisions or orders that cannot be contested again to a higher court are the exception. When sentencing a punishment, the reason for the judgment must state the facts that became the crime, the gist of the evidence, and the application of laws and ordinances (Criminal Procedure Act Article 323, Paragraph 1). If a fact that becomes the reason why a crime does not legally constitute, or the reason why a punishment is made heavier, lighter, or exempted was argued, the judgment on that must also be stated (Criminal Procedure Act Article 323, Paragraph 2). What civil trials and criminal trials dispute in the first place is dealt with in "What is the Difference Between Civil and Criminal — One Case, Two Courts."

One paper organizes the usefulness of writing the reason to this extent into three. The reason becomes the foundational material for the parties to decide whether to appeal the judgment, becomes the foundational material when a higher court reviews the case, and holds the judging judge's judgment process so that it remains objective and fair (KCI ART002485746).

The ruling and the reason also differ in weight. Even after a judgment becomes final—meaning soon after ways to contest it further end and the judgment solidifies—the power binding the parties and subsequent trials is in principle generated in the judgment contained in the ruling, and is not generated in the judgment inside the reason (DOI: 10.16960/jhlr.13.3.201210.383). There are exceptions set by the law to this principle, and discussions among academic theories and precedents continue regarding its scope.

There are also exceptions where the reason is made short or not written. In some cases among first-instance judgments set by the law, the reason can be briefly displayed (Civil Procedure Act Article 208, Paragraph 3). In judgments where the Supreme Court ends a case without reviewing it further and judgments of civil cases with small amounts, the reason may not be written according to law (DOI: 10.31779/plj.14.2.201305.012, KCI ART002301718). The Constitutional Court has judged the Supreme Court-side system to be constitutional (DOI: 10.36532/kulri.2023.111.35). There are papers arguing that these systems should be amended (KCI ART002485746), and among them, some cite the infringement of the right to trial as the basis (DOI: 10.31779/plj.14.2.201305.012, KCI ART002301718).

The reason is a text that shows why the ruling is correct so that the reader can follow along, and what it must contain is set by the law.

The First Page of an Actual Ruling

Now we open an actual court ruling. This is Supreme Court Case 2009Da17417, a ruling delivered on May 21, 2009. When you open this ruling in the Korea Legislation Research Institute's National Law Information Center, a summary appears before the main text.

A summary of a ruling is a synopsis attached to the front that extracts core judgments from the main text of the ruling. In this ruling, sections like the items held, summary of the ruling, and reference provisions appear first, and the main text of the ruling begins below that under "Case Law Details" (Supreme Court 2009Da17417). The summary is convenient, but it is not the main text itself. The main text transcribes verbatim the patient's everyday words that the court accepted as facts, whereas the summary condenses this into a single phrase: "conversation in the patient's daily life" (Supreme Court 2009Da17417). What is omitted from the summary must be found in the main text.

At the very beginning of the main text are the case number 2009Da17417 and the case name "Removal of Meaningless Life-Sustaining Treatment Device, etc." The plaintiff is the patient themselves, and in the published ruling, only "Plaintiff" is written instead of a name. The defendant is the school corporation to which the attending physician who treated the patient belongs, in other words, the hospital side (Supreme Court 2009Da17417).

The lower court refers to the court that tried this case in the stage immediately preceding the current ruling. The section following the parties is the lower court ruling. The lower court for this case is the Seoul High Court ruling of February 10, 2009, which accepted the patient side's claim. One of the opinions of the Supreme Court Justices who did not join the majority, which we will see later, summarizes the lower court as "citing the plaintiff's claim to discontinue life-sustaining treatment" (Supreme Court 2009Da17417).

An appeal to the Supreme Court is the act of expressing dissatisfaction with the second-instance ruling and asking the Supreme Court for a new judgment. In the parties section, the hospital side is written as "Defendant, Appellant." This means the hospital side appealed. Why trials proceed through three stages is covered in "The Three-Instance System and the Supreme Court — Three Steps the Trial Climbs and Descends."

And then there is the disposition. "The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant." (Supreme Court 2009Da17417) The dismissal seen earlier is used here to mean not accepting the appeal, rather than the claim. Since the hospital side's appeal was not accepted, the lower court ruling that accepted the patient side's claim stands as is. The costs incurred for the appeal are paid by the losing hospital side.

Even if you only read the case number, parties, lower court, and disposition on the first page, you can see who sued whom over what and how it ended.

The reasoning answers the raised questions one by one

The reasoning of this judgment begins with "We judge the grounds for final appeal." Numbered headings follow underneath. First is the ground for appeal regarding the permissible criteria for halting life-sustaining treatment, second is the ground for appeal that the patient has not entered the stage of irreversible death, and third is the ground for appeal that the patient's intent to seek the cessation of medical care cannot be presumed. The fourth is the conclusion (Supreme Court 2009Da17417). It is a structure that answers the three questions posed by the hospital to the Supreme Court in turn.

The first answer is the standard. The Supreme Court calls it the "stage of irreversible death" when it is medically clear that the patient has no possibility of recovering consciousness, cannot recover the loss of vital life functions, and can reach death within a short time. It writes first that whether to halt treatment directly tied to life must be judged extremely restrictively and carefully. Next, it rules that if it is recognized that a patient who has reached that stage exercises their right to self-determination, halting life-sustaining treatment may be permitted barring special circumstances. It saw that the standard used by the lower court was also in the same vein and thus justified (Supreme Court 2009Da17417).

The second and third answers concern this patient. The lower court acknowledged the facts that brain imaging showed the brain to be severely and generally atrophied, and that the state of life being maintained by a ventilator with no spontaneous breathing was a fact. The attending physician stated that the possibility of recovering consciousness was less than 5%, and the medical record appraiser stated that the possibility of recovery was near zero. The lower court presumed the patient's intent by gathering facts such as that the patient had said "I do not wish to have my life extended by a machine" while watching over the death of a family member (Supreme Court 2009Da17417).

The Supreme Court wrote that it could accept these judgments of the lower court as following the standard it had just established (Supreme Court 2009Da17417). This ruling is a judgment from 2009. Today, the "Act on Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment for Patients in Hospice and Palliative Care and at the End of Life" (abbreviated as the Life-Sustaining Treatment Decision Act) regulates matters necessary for life-sustaining treatment, decisions on halting life-sustaining treatment, and their implementation for patients at the end of life (Article 1 of the Life-Sustaining Treatment Decision Act). This law limits cases where an attending physician can implement a decision to halt life-sustaining treatment to those prescribed by law (Article 15 of the Life-Sustaining Treatment Decision Act). Therefore, one cannot know today's rules solely by the standards of this judgment, and this article only conveys what the court judged in 2009 and why.

The reasoning first establishes a standard, and tests the facts of this case against that standard. If you read while separately looking for the facts recognized by the court and the standards used by the court, you will not lose your way.

Different answers in the same judgment

Right after the conclusion, there is a sentence describing how the opinions of the Supreme Court justices were divided. You can tell who issued this judgment by looking at the judgment type column.

An en banc ruling is a trial panel of the Supreme Court where at least two-thirds of all Supreme Court justices gather with the Chief Justice presiding. The law stipulates that the trial power of the Supreme Court is exercised by this panel, and the Chief Justice acts as the presiding judge (Court Organization Act, Article 7, Paragraph 1). The judgment type column of this ruling says "En banc ruling," and the end of the judgment lists the names of 13 people including the Chief Justice as the presiding judge (대법원 2009다17417).

The majority opinion is the opinion held by the greater number of judges participating in the trial, forming the disposition and its reasons. A dissenting opinion is an opinion left by a judge who does not agree with the conclusion of the judgment, explaining why their own thought is different. According to the sentence after the conclusion, except for two dissenting opinions with two Supreme Court justices named on each, the opinions of the participating judges were unanimous (대법원 2009다17417). Four out of the 13 Supreme Court justices are named in the dissenting opinions. Both dissenting opinions agreed that the claim should not be accepted, but they parted ways at different points.

One dissenting opinion shares the same intent as the majority opinion on the broad framework of the criteria. At the same time, it considered that it cannot be easily concluded that this patient had reached that stage. It gave heavy weight to the fact that the attending physician, who had continuously treated the patient, saw that the possibility of recovery remained, even if under 5%, and that the life expectancy was at least 4 months or more. It stated that the patient's intent must also be read from the circumstances in which they actually held it, and cannot be recognized merely on the assumption that they would have chosen that way if they had the opportunity (대법원 2009다17417).

The other dissenting opinion parted ways on the criteria itself. It took the view that although life-sustaining treatment can be refused from the beginning, stopping treatment by removing equipment already attached is not permitted in principle. It made an exception only for cases judged to result in death within hours or days, and considered that this patient was not such a case (대법원 2009다17417).

A concurring opinion is an opinion that joins the conclusion while adding to its reasons. The concurring opinion in this judgment answers the subsequent dissenting opinions one by one and concludes that the majority opinion is justified. A separate opinion is an opinion that joins the conclusion while stating different reasons for it. The separate opinion in this judgment clarified that this issue can be judged through a procedure of receiving permission from the family court other than a lawsuit, provided that one does not necessarily have to go through that procedure (대법원 2009다17417). A paper dealing with constitutional adjudication also classifies that a dissenting opinion is issued when opposing the disposition, a concurring opinion when agreeing with the conclusion and adding reasons, and a separate opinion when agreeing with the conclusion and giving different reasons (DOI: 10.35215/jcj.2019.6.1.006).

Such different answers are published because the law has prescribed them. The Supreme Court trial document must indicate the opinions of all Supreme Court justices involved in the deliberation (Court Organization Act, Article 15). Meanwhile, the same law stipulates that the deliberation of trials shall not be made public (Court Organization Act, Article 65). One paper reads these two as follows: the principle is not to write minority opinions, an exception is made by explicit regulation only for Supreme Court cases, and that regulation is known to have been influenced by the United States during the US military government period after liberation (DOI: 10.22825/juris.2021.1.56.020).

A dissenting opinion does not have the effect of a judgment. The Constitutional Court is the same. The decision document must state the disposition and reasons, and the justices participating in the trial must indicate their opinions on the decision document (Constitutional Court Act, Article 36, Paragraph 2, Article 36, Paragraph 3). However, the aforementioned paper summarizes that in constitutional adjudication, the effect of the decision does not belong to the minority opinion; instead, it serves to inform the public of various interpretations and show that the decision came from dialogue and debate among the justices (DOI: 10.35215/jcj.2019.6.1.006).

A dissenting opinion does not change the conclusion of the judgment, but it shows where the judgment parted ways.

Opening a Single Judgment Document Yourself

Now we open the initial hypothetical judgment document again with four questions in mind.

The first question is "What did the plaintiff claim?" The shop owner claimed 100 million won. In the judgment document, this is in the section stating the purport of the claim.

The second question is "What is the order?" Pay 70 million won, and dismiss the remaining claim. Placed side by side with the first answer, a difference of 30 million won is visible. Now we look for the reason for that difference in the reasoning.

The third question is "What facts did the court recognize?" Water leaked from the upper floor pipe, and some of the facilities that were broken were already old. The 30 million won difference starts here.

The fourth question is "What law was applied and how?" This hypothetical judgment determined that the upstairs homeowner only needs to compensate for damages caused by the leak, and subtracted the portion that was originally old. When you apply the criteria of the fourth answer to the facts of the third answer, the 70 million won of the order comes out.

The same four questions can be used for the life-sustaining treatment judgment. However, in the Supreme Court judgment, the first question changes to "Who requested what again?" The hospital side appealed contesting the lower court judgment, and the order "dismissal of appeal" is the answer to that appeal. The plaintiff's claim is not separately transcribed in the body of the Supreme Court judgment text, but judging by the case name and sentences within the reasoning, it reads primarily as a request to remove the attached ventilator. The facts recognized by the court are the patient's condition and everyday words recognized by the lower court, and the criteria applied are the stage of irreversible death and the method of presuming the patient's will (Supreme Court 2009Da17417).

The four questions are also useful when reading dissenting opinions. Neither of the two dissenting opinions disputed the facts recognized by the lower court. The first dissenting opinion placed more weight on the attending physician's opinion among the same facts, and also viewed the method of presuming the patient's will differently. Therefore, it did not agree with the judgment that this patient meets the criteria, that is, the "how" of the fourth question. The latter dissenting opinion split from the criteria of the fourth question itself.

A judgment document can be read through four questions: what was claimed, what is the order, what facts were recognized, and what law was applied and how.

Easy-to-Read Judgments, Accessible Judgments

Judgment sentences are long. A 2014 quantitative analysis shows that the average sentence in a judgment document is 47 eojeols, which is 4 times longer than the 11-eojeol average of sentences in everyday text corpora (KCI ART001861289). There is also research showing that the reasoning sections of Supreme Court precedents are characterized by very long sentences connected by endings like "-go" and "-mye" and a high proportion of Sino-Korean words, and that this was influenced by the precedents of the High Court during the Japanese colonial period (DOI: 10.16959/jeachy..98.202408.77).

Proposals to fix this have also piled up. There are proposals to shorten sentences, write in a top-down style with the main point first, and attach titles to each clause (DOI: 10.22825/juris.2018.1.44.003). There are also proposals to use methods that inform about the case overview and grounds for appeal, and a structure that puts the conclusion upfront (DOI: 10.22825/juris.2018.1.44.002). Even in life-sustaining treatment judgments, if you follow the numbered titles, you do not lose your way.

The scope of accessible judgments is also widening. There is an analysis that one of the efforts made by the judiciary since democratization to increase the fairness and transparency of trials has been the expansion of the disclosure of judgments (KCI ART002829303). However, disclosure clashes with personal information protection. Along with pointing out that the disclosure rate is low and the task of redacting names is done manually, resulting in low efficiency, proposals have emerged to automate this task using artificial intelligence (DOI: 10.34122/jip.2025.20.2.93). Even in life-sustaining treatment judgments, the patient's name is not visible and is written only as "Plaintiff."

Judgments are still much longer than everyday sentences, and the scope of who can view them is being adjusted in conjunction with personal information protection.

Where to Look Further

There is an analysis that while a full bench ruling puts an end to a debate, it also becomes the starting point for a new debate (KCI ART002757253). Even after reading a single ruling from beginning to end, how the standards of that ruling are used in subsequent rulings remains an open question.

Other articles in "First Steps in Trials" fill the earlier space of this article. The difference between civil trials where plaintiffs and defendants dispute and criminal trials where guilt is determined is covered by "How Civil and Criminal Trials Differ — One Case, Two Courts", the three stages where a lower court appeal and a final appeal follow are covered by "The Three-Tier Trial System and the Supreme Court — Three Steps Up and Down the Trial", and who bears the responsibility of proving guilt in a criminal trial is covered by "The Presumption of Innocence — The Threshold the Prosecutor Must Cross".

As an article that reads a single decision together with the majority opinion, dissenting opinions, and separate opinions, there is "How Far Does the Word 'Tradition' Hold Up Before the Constitution — What the 2005 Family Head System Decision Actually Argued About" from the "Yardstick of the Court" series. You can apply the four questions learned in this article to that decision, changing only the first question to "Who Asked What".

Source Papers

• Civil Act Article 208 (Matters to be Entered in Judgments, etc.) — Current (Enforced 2025.7.12) — Judgments shall state the parties, disposition, purport of claims, reasons, closing date of arguments, and court, and the judge shall sign and seal. The reasons shall indicate judgments to the extent that the disposition is recognized as justified. Some first-instance judgments may be indicated concisely.
• Criminal Procedure Act Article 38 (Format of Trial Documents) — Current (Enforced 2026.10.2) — Trials shall be based on trial documents prepared by a judge.
• Criminal Procedure Act Article 39 (Reasons for Trial) — Current (Enforced 2026.10.2) — Reasons shall be clearly stated in trials. Decisions and orders that do not allow appeals are exceptions.
• Criminal Procedure Act Article 323 (Reasons to be Clearly Stated in Guilty Judgments) — Current (Enforced 2026.10.2) — When sentencing, the facts constituting the crime, summary of evidence, and application of statutes shall be clearly stated, and if statements of grounds for exclusion of criminal liability or aggravation/reduction of punishment are made, judgments thereon shall be clearly stated.
• Court Organization Act Article 15 (Expression of Opinions by Supreme Court Justices) — Current (Enforced 2026.10.2) — Supreme Court trial documents shall express the opinions of all Supreme Court Justices who participated in the deliberation.
• Court Organization Act Article 65 (Non-disclosure of Deliberations) — Current (Enforced 2026.10.2) — Deliberations of trials shall not be disclosed.
• Court Organization Act Article 7 (Exercise of Adjudication Power) — Current (Enforced 2026.10.2) — The adjudication power of the Supreme Court shall be exercised by a full bench of at least two-thirds of all Supreme Court Justices, and the Chief Justice shall preside. Cases that may be tried in divisions and exceptions thereto are stipulated together.
• Act on Decisions on Life-Extending Treatment for Patients in Hospice and Palliative Care and at the End of Life Article 1 (Purpose) — Current (Enforced 2025.10.2) — Specifies matters necessary for life-extending treatment, decisions to withhold or withdraw life-extending treatment, and the implementation thereof for patients at the end of life.
• Act on Decisions on Life-Extending Treatment for Patients in Hospice and Palliative Care and at the End of Life Article 15 (Subjects of Implementation of Decisions to Withhold or Withdraw Life-Extending Treatment) — Current (Enforced 2025.10.2) — The physician in charge may implement a decision to withhold or withdraw life-extending treatment only in cases prescribed by law.
• Constitutional Court Act Article 36 (Final Decisions) — Current (Enforced 2026.3.12) — Decision documents shall record the case number, parties, disposition, reasons, and decision date, and participating justices shall express their opinions on the decision document.
• Supreme Court 2009Da17417 "Removal of Meaningless Life-Sustaining Treatment Equipment, etc." (2009.5.21, Full Bench) — Original text (full text of judgment) — Dismissal of appeal. Criteria for permitting the suspension of life-sustaining treatment at the stage of irreversible death, dissenting opinions of Supreme Court Justices Ahn Dae-hee and Yang Chang-su, dissenting opinions of Supreme Court Justices Lee Hong-hoon and Kim Nughwan, concurring opinion of Supreme Court Justices Kim Ji-hyung and Cha Han-sung, and separate opinion of Supreme Court Justices Kim Ji-hyung and Park Il-hwan.
• "A Critical Study on the Objective Scope of Res Judicata - In Relation to the Judgment Disposition and Adjudication of Reasons -" (2012) — DOI: 10.16960/jhlr.13.3.201210.383 — Res judicata principle arises only in the judgment disposition and not in the reasons, with the defense of set-off as an exception.
• "A Study on the Omission of Statement of Reasons in Judgments" (2019) — KCI ART002485746 — Judgment reasons serve as basic data for determining whether to appeal and for higher court review, and guarantee the objectivity and fairness of the adjudication process. Argument that regulations omitting reasons in small claims and appeal-dismissal cases should be revised.
• "Review of Unconstitutionality of the System for Omitting Reasons in Supreme Court Decisions Dismissing Appeals without Substantive Review" (2013) — DOI: 10.31779/plj.14.2.201305.012 — Decisions without substantive review under the Special Act Concerning Procedure for Appeal may omit reasons. The Constitutional Court has recognized constitutionality, but the author views it as unconstitutional for infringing on the right to trial.
• "Constitutional Issues and Revision Proposals regarding the Necessity of Improving the System for Omitting Reasons in Decisions without Substantive Review" (2023) — DOI: 10.36532/kulri.2023.111.35 — The Constitutional Court has maintained an opinion of constitutionality regarding the reason-omission system. The author questions its justification following the logic of the dissenting opinion and proposes an amendment.
• "A Study on the Omission of Statement of Reasons in Judgments for Civil Small Claims" (2017) — KCI ART002301718 — Small claim judgments may omit the statement of reasons, and the argument is that this has potential to infringe on the right to trial and should be revised.
• "Minority Opinion System in Constitutional Adjudication" (2019) — DOI: 10.35215/jcj.2019.6.1.006 — Minority opinions are divided into dissenting, concurring, and separate opinions, the effect of the decision is not binding, and they function to make diverse interpretations known and show that decisions are the result of dialogue and discussion.
• "Comparative Legal Review on Minority Opinions - Focusing on the Statement of Minority Opinions in Lower Courts" (2021) — DOI: 10.22825/juris.2021.1.56.020 — The Court Organization Act's provision on expressing Supreme Court Justices' opinions is known to be due to American influence during the US military government period, and the interpretation that under the principle of non-disclosure of deliberations, stating minority opinions is an explicit exception limited to the Supreme Court. Proposes permitting it limited to civil appellate trials.
• "A Study on Sentence Expansion Aspects of Judgment Texts —From the Perspective of Judgment Simplification—" (2014) — KCI ART001861289 — Judgment sentences average 47 eojeols, 4 times that of everyday language (11 eojeols), and favor noun chains and adnominal clause modification (corpus quantitative analysis).
• "A Study on the Historical Changes of Judgment Styles —Focusing on Supreme Court Precedents—" (2024) — DOI: 10.16959/jeachy..98.202408.77 — Supreme Court precedent reasons are characterized by long connected sentences and a high proportion of Sino-Korean words, influenced by high court precedents during the Japanese colonial period. Improvement is a future task.
• "Directions for Improving the Style of Supreme Court Judgments from a Korean Linguistics Perspective" (2018) — DOI: 10.22825/juris.2018.1.44.003 — Proposes shortening sentences, numbered items, topicalization, section headings, and visual devices for case overviews.
• "Justification and Direction for Improving Supreme Court Judgments" (2018) — DOI: 10.22825/juris.2018.1.44.002 — Judgments are a means of communication. Proposes a topicalized structure that provides case overviews and grounds for appeal along with expression improvements.
• "Judgment Publication System and Judicial Accountability" (2022) — KCI ART002829303 — Expansion of judgment publication has proceeded as one of the efforts to secure fairness and transparency in trials after democratization.
• "Improving the Judgment Publication System Using Generative Artificial Intelligence: Legal and Technical Approaches to Balance Privacy Protection and the Right to Know" (2025) — DOI: 10.34122/jip.2025.20.2.93 — Current publication systems suffer from low publication rates and inefficiency of manual de-identification, and proposes a method to automate de-identification using fine-tuned small language models (experimental study).
• "The Process of Boundary Determination Between Majority and Minority Opinions After Supreme Court Full Bench Judgments" (2021) — KCI ART002757253 — Majority opinions are sometimes created through compromise and concession, and full bench judgments sometimes end controversies while also becoming the starting point for new controversies.