I think that without a functioning rule of law, you cannot say that the law about Kim being eternal ruler will have any particular effect and so wouldn't necessarily lead to his being thawed and reinstated. Not being bound in any way by the law refutes the part of polymathwannabe's conclusion about what would happen "if they want to follow the spirit of the law."
Yes, I see what you are saying. But if we interpret /u/polymathwannabe a little more charitably, we might steelman the claim thus:
The Kim dynasty's dogma is that Grandpa Kim is the eternal ruler of the country. That corpse is beyond recovery now, but given the continuation of the Kim dynasty, they might want to store the present Kim in order to safeguard the once and future Kim.
This interpretation focuses less on the law, but it still gets /u/polymathwannabe's point across.
This month's media thread includes a short article on some people's idea to have Ayn Rand frozen, which ultimately didn't happen. My first reaction was a shudder. I thought, I definitely wouldn't want Ayn Rand preserved forever. My second thought was, What right do I have to say who can and who can't get frozen?
Whatever your thoughts on Ayn Rand, I think this can spark an interesting conversation: What, if anything, should humankind do about people who are widely seen as harmful for the whole? For example, if the Castro dynasty in Cuba or the Kim dynasty in North Korea decide to freeze themselves to ensure they will continue oppressing their countries forever, should that be prevented? (And yes, my opinion of Ayn Rand is such that these examples came to mind.)