Korean Courts Pay 13.6 Billion Won in Penalties as Disability Hiring Falls Short

South Korea’s court system has paid more than 13.6 billion won in penalties over six years after repeatedly failing to meet the country’s mandatory employment rate for people with disabilities, according to data disclosed by a lawmaker on Saturday.

Figures submitted by the Supreme Court to Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Yong-min showed that 476 people with disabilities held general civil-service positions in the judiciary as of August. The court system had a total quota of 17,863 such positions, putting the employment rate at 2.7 percent.

That level was well below the 3.8 percent mandatory rate applied to state and public institutions under South Korea’s law on employment promotion and vocational rehabilitation for people with disabilities. The judiciary would need to employ at least 678 people with disabilities to meet the statutory threshold, meaning it was short by more than 200 workers based on the disclosed figures.

The data also indicated that the gap was not a one-year anomaly. From 2021 through 2025, the judiciary’s disability employment rate remained around 2.7 percent every year and did not reach the legal requirement once. Penalties accumulated over the six-year period through this year as the shortfall persisted.

The disclosure raises questions about whether financial penalties alone are producing meaningful change inside a public institution responsible for interpreting and enforcing the law. Mandatory hiring rules are intended to expand access to stable work and reduce structural barriers faced by people with disabilities, particularly in large public organizations that can influence broader employment practices.

Kim, a member of the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee, called for practical measures rather than continued reliance on paying penalties. He said the judiciary must develop an effective response to its repeated failure to satisfy the mandatory rate.

The figures do not identify the specific occupational categories or hiring stages responsible for the persistent shortfall. They nevertheless show that the court system has remained substantially below its legal target despite years of penalty payments. Any corrective plan would need to address recruitment, workplace accommodation and retention if the judiciary is to close the gap rather than simply reduce it temporarily.

The issue places renewed scrutiny on public-sector accountability in disability employment. With the required rate standing more than one percentage point above the judiciary’s current level, meeting the standard will require a sustained increase in hiring and continued employment, not a marginal adjustment.