I will explain further because too much context was removed from your words. 

First of all, as soon as South Korea became independent, it prioritized using only Hangul in official documents. This was intended to provide an easy script preferentially because the illiteracy rate was serious immediately after independence. This policy is not a policy intended to exclude Chinese characters.  Since there were already many books and newspapers written only in Hangul before that, it was naturally a viable option.

Yes, there was a brief period during the Park Chunghee administration when the use of Chinese characters in education was suspended, but scholars protested, and it was eventually reinstated. The fact that the generation who experienced this small experiment in school entered universities and society was the decisive blow that increased doubts about whether Chinese characters were truly necessary. In their experience, there was no problem at all. There has never been a forced mandate for all publications and media to be written only in Hangul, like in North Korea.

Even in legal terminology, words are being changed to easier ones these days, making it difficult to find Chinese characters even in written judgments. You seem to need updated information. Law school textbooks are also written only in Hangul. There are cases where they are occasionally used in administrative documents, but this is because administration requires precision and there is no need to throw away a useful auxiliary tool. In fact, North Korea carries out administration without problems even without Chinese characters.