Constitutional Court Of Korea Research Articles

Shabbat and Shattered Dreams: Religious Accommodations for Public Exams in South Korea

Abstract Today in South Korea, individuals of certain faiths are unable to take a wide range of state-administered qualifying examinations due to their religious convictions. The Constitutional Court of Korea has repeatedly refused their request for religious accommodations, such as an alternative test date for Sabbath or holy day observers who are unable to take exams on their original dates. The authors analyze the series of Constitutional Court decisions rejecting the need for such accommodation by focusing on the court’s use of its main analytical tool, the proportionality principle. These decisions reveal important shortcomings in the court’s application of the proportionality principle, including challenges inherent to proportionality and more specific deficiencies in the court’s application of the general principle. The article thus sheds light on how the proportionality principle is applied in the context of Korean constitutional jurisprudence and the resultant deprivation of protection for certain fundamental rights in Korea. The authors compare the court’s approach with that of courts in Spain, Switzerland, and the United States. They then propose a number of ways to improve the court’s proportionality analysis and its constitutional reasoning.

국가·지방자치단체·감독자의 직접 손해배상책임에 관한 연구

In order to file a suit under State Compensation Act in Korea, a plaintiff must prove that public officials or private persons entrusted with public duties inflict damage on other persons “by intention or negligence” in performing their official duties in violation of the statutes. The Constitutional Court of Korea has confirmed that the requirement of public officials’ intention or negligence in State Compensation Act does not violate Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. In the recent two tragic incidents of Itaewon and Osong, state government and municipalities’ inadequate policies and customs as well as lack of training are the moving force of the violations of victims’ rights rather than individual police officers and public officials. Nevertheless, the estates and victims of the incidents must rely on individual public officials’ intention or negligence in order to successfully win their case under State Compensation Act. In contrast, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S. Code Section 1983 allows plaintiffs to file a suit against municipal entities when their constitutional or federally guaranteed rights are violated by unconstitutional policies, customs or practices as well as lack of training or supervision. Furthermore, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S. Code Section 14141 allows government authorities to review the practices of law enforcement agencies that violate citizens’ constitutional rights. In this regard, the present study, analyzing the parliamentary audit and inspection report on the Itaewon incident, proposed several policy implications for the revision of State Compensation Act by allowing plaintiffs to directly sue state, municipalities, policymakers and supervisors.

유럽인권재판소의 공정한 균형 심사

The proportionality plays an important role in the case law of Europenan Court of Human Rights. The Court’s proportionality test is classified as a ‘horizontal’ proportionality test, setting it apart from the vertical proportionality test used by the Constitutional Court of Korea. The horizontal proportionality test of the European Court of Human Rights does not adhere to any particular order of assessment but instead focuses its reasoning on a fair balance test. The fair balance test is similar to the fourth prong of proportionality test of the Korean Constitutional Court. The essence of proportionality, from a theoretical standpoint, lies in determining whether the specific level of restriction on a right is worth being endured compared to the degree of benefits achieved by the actions of public authorities. In the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the fair balance test perform this balancing task. Hence, the European Court of Human Rights' reasoning structure, which places a fair balance at its core, is theoretically sound. In applying the fair balancing test, the European Court of Human Rights considers not only the relevance to the fundamental values of the European Convention on Human Rights but also various specific circumstances of each case. This enables the Court to assess the concrete importance of the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the concrete value of the measures taken by member states, moving beyond their abstract value. While the European Court of Human Rights applies the “margin of appreciation” doctrine in their assessment of the fair balance, the reasoning structure still remains within the framework of a balancing test. The Constitutional Court of Korea also considers the balance of interests, although decisions where this prong predominate are rare. Nevertheless, there have been recent decisions that demonstrate a dedicated commitment to the balance of interests, both quantitatively and qualitatively. This new trend is commendable, both from a theoretical perspective and in comparison to the practices of the European Court of Human Rights.

대통령 집무실 및 전직대통령 사저 인근에서의 절대적 집회금지를 규정한 집시법 제11조 개정안의 위헌성

Recently, some members of National Assembly proposed an amendment to Article 11 of the ‘Assembly And Demonstration Act’ in order to ban on assemblies in the vicinity of the Executive Office of the President and former President's residence This paper will examine the constitutionality of this proposal.
 Absolute no-assembly zones have historically been used by military regimes as a means to curb citizens' freedom of assembly. These zones are generally thought to be unduly restrictive of freedom of assembly and do not pass the proportionality test. In fact, the Constitutional Court of Korea has ruled several parts of Article 11 of the Assembly And Demonstration Act unconstitutional.
 Before examining the constitutionality of this amendment proposal, we must first define the concept of “Presidential residence” in Article 11(3) of the Assembly And Demonstration Act. Taking into account the dictionary meaning of the term, the structure of Article 11 of the Assembly And Demonstration Act, and the guarantee of freedom of assembly, the term “presidential residence” refers to the living quarters of the President and his family.
 The absolute prohibition of all assemblies in the vicinity of the President's residence is aimed at protecting the constitutional functions of the President, and the absolute prohibition of all assemblies in the vicinity of the residence of former presidents is aimed at ensuring the personal safety of former presidents and the tranquility of their residences. These legislative objectives are legitimate. However, the above provisions uniformly prohibit all assemblies despite the fact that there is no need to regulate small and peaceful assemblies. Also, the legislative objectives can be achieved through the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the Criminal Code, and the Presidential Security Act. Therefore, these provisions violate the right to freedom of assembly. The amendments should not be passed.

농업부문의 환매권에 대한 연구

The redemption right, or the right to repurchase, is generally given to legal entities to guarantee their ownership of the Constitution. The repurchase right is currently prescribed in three acts, the Civil Act, the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land for Public Works Projects, and the Korea Rural Community Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act. However, there are some differences in meaning, validating points and conditions, and related entities of respective law. In 2020 the article prescribing the 10-year redemption right of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land for Public Works Projects was adjudicated that the article is not compatible with the property right of the Constitution by the Constitutional Court of Korea. Upon the adjudication, the question has arisen whether it affects the repurchase right of the Korea Rural Community Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act or not. If it does, the related article should be revised and the related policy should also be changed. However, if it does not, the government and the corporation can keep the current policy without any change in the article. Reviewing the applicability of the adjudication to the Korea Rural Community Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act, it is concluded that the redemption right of the Act is different from that of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land for Public Works Projects and that there is no need to apply the adjudication to agriculture.

제3자 보관 정보의 압수수색과정보주체에 대한 통지

Today, the seizure and search of electronic data stored on ISP/CP servers is no longer considered as a specific type of investigative measure and is typically performed in the early stages of an investigation, like accessing data stored on the personal storage devices. In the former case, it violates the principle of fair trial and proportionality that the right to participate, which is an effective control over excessive information collection by the Supreme Court of Korea, can be excluded from the outset by the investigating authority not by an objective and independent third party. In text, the Constitutional Court of Korea is in a position that this defect of procedural guarantee can be sufficiently compensated through protesting against the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence or filing an appeal. However, it is questionable whether this is justifiable considering the extensive seizure and search, the objections after indictment-related dispositions, and the trial procedures that have already been initiated.
 Meanwhile, the seizure and search of third-party archive data and the notification of the accused, i.e. the individuals affected by the data, have been disputed over the past ten years, also in Germany, along with discussions on the openness/confidentiality of measures. Especially in the area of security crime, the general provisions of the seizure and search of StPO should be considered as directory provisions for effective investigation. And this violation is neither illegal nor revoked. Therefore, the investigative agencies argued that they could confidentially execute the seizure and search based on this court order under the general regulations. However, the BGH and the BVerfG clearly rejected this opinion. The BVerfG explained as follows: If the seizure and search of electronic data stored on the ISP/CP’s server is carried out openly, it may be based on the general regulations, just like the seizure and search of the data stored in the personal storage devices, while if such an action is carried out confidentially, it should be accompanied by enhanced procedural control. In 2021, the German parliament made § 95a StPO, a legal basis for allowing searches and seizures under the general regulations to be carried out confidentially, which means without knowing the person affected by the data, i.e. the suspect. The rule allows deferral of notification at the same level as ensuring Procedures in Telecommunications Surveillance.
 In today's information technology conditions, there is no reason to treat the data differently whether it is stored on a server or on a personal data storage device when investigative agencies access electronic data. Therefore, in both cases, the procedural guarantee to protect fundamental rights and their exclusion should be permissible under the same requirements according to the rule of law and the principle of proportionality. It must be taken into account here that secret coercive measures need to be tapped into strengthened procedural controls as they are more invasive than open coercive measures.

The Two Modes of Foreign Engagement by the Constitutional Court of Korea

AbstractThe Constitutional Court of Korea (CCK) has engaged with foreign law and practices in two distinct manners. While the CCK has interacted with foreign constitutional adjudicatory organs outside the courtroom, it has also developed comparative law practices inside the courtroom. This article aims to examine the interaction between the CCK's two modes of foreign engagement. The chronological inquiry, substantiated by the interviews with former and current legal practitioners of the CCK, demonstrates the gap between the CCK's two modes of foreign engagement. The CCK's evolving extrajudicial activities have provided the repositories of information adequate for the deliberation of individual cases. However, the CCK's rigid structure for comparative law practices, which was established in its initial years to learn from traditionally influential jurisdictions, restricts these repositories from being fully utilised inside the courtroom. The CCK's failure to fully incorporate its developments in its extrajudicial activities into comparative law practices disallows the CCK to grasp an evolving picture of foreign constitutional adjudicatory organs.

Constitutional Review Complaint as an Evolution of the Kelsenian Model

Abstract A centralized constitutional review system, generally known as the Austrian Constitutional Court model established in 1920 by Hans Kelsen, has spread globally after World War II and is now the most active constitutional tribunal in Europe. Interestingly, although the Constitutional Court of Korea was classified as this Kelsenian model, besides a typical kind of constitutional review procedure, the Court runs an additional procedure for the constitutional review of legislation. The latter has some comparatively special and unusual requirements and procedure, but the statistics indicate it has been actively used. It takes the form of a constitutional complaint, but in practice, it is treated as the second type of constitutional review of legislation in Korean constitutional adjudication. Through this special procedure, individuals appear to participate in a tripartite conversation on constitutional interpretation along with the judicial branch and the Constitutional Court. Moreover, to some extent, this sui generis complaint is perceived to make up for the prohibition of constitutional complaint on judgments of ordinary courts (‘Urteilsbeschwerde’) in Korea. In Austria, the individual complaint on constitutional review of statutes was introduced by a constitutional amendment in 2013, whereby the individual parties of the pending cases are entitled to file a constitutional review with the Constitutional Court as of 1 January 2015. In terms of enabling the individual party to request to the Constitutional Court for constitutional review of legislation, the Austrian new complaint is similar to the Korean one, but their requirements and procedures are different. From the perspective of enhanced individual access to the Constitutional Court, however, both complaints may be viewed as an evolution of the Kelsenian model to meet the demands of the times. In this regard, the Korean practice for over three decades may provide useful insights into the implementation of a new practice and further improvement in Austria. This article will examine the Korean ‘Constitutional Review Complaint’ and compare it with the Austrian ‘Gesetzesbeschwerde (Parteiantrag auf Normenkontrolle)’ to explore mutual references that will help improve both institutions. Then, I will assess what this kind of evolutionary invention of the constitutional review implies to the centennial of the Austrian model.

‘Rights investing’ in Korea: focusing on the overturned decisions of the Constitutional Court

ABSTRACT This article examines the development of human rights discourse in Korea by focusing on some overturned cases by the Constitutional Court of Korea that declares new types of rights and offers new interpretations on existing human rights. While creating new human rights through court decisions have been criticised by those concerned about ‘rights inflation’ for devaluing the currency of human rights, this article argues that it is a natural process evolved along various aspects of a constantly changing society and increasing social demands. Moreover, the author argues that it is a desirable process in a democratic society because it enables us to empower many citizens, including the previously marginalised, to seek a less discriminatory society by distributing authority to speak out about unfairness and injustice. Introducing some empirical cases where the judicial decision considered constant changes in social situation and reflected on them in overturning precedents, the author stresses the need to look at the background and social circumstances wherein new rights emerged from a social and cultural perspective of law to better understand the human rights discourse, as well as elevate the level of human rights protection.

신고납세방식 조세에 관한 법령과 헌법재판소법 제68조 제 1 항 헌법소원 - 헌재 2020. 9. 24. 2017헌마498 결정을 중심으로 -

헌법재판소는 지난 수십 년간 납세의무자의 신고납세방식 조세법령에 대한 헌법재판소법 제68조 제 1 항의 헌법소원을 허용하지 않았다. 그 이유는 과세처분 등 구체적 집행행위가 예정되어 있으므로 신고납세방식 조세법령에 대한 기본권 침해의 직접성이 인정되지 않는다는 것이다. 최근 나온 결정(2017헌마498)에서도 이러한 판시가 유지되었다.<BR> 이 글은 위 결정을 중심으로 하여, 헌법재판소의 종래 태도를 비판적으로 검토하였다. 신고납세방식 조세의 특성에 비추어 법령에 대한 기본권 침해의 직접성을 일률적ㆍ획일적으로 부정하는 것이 타당한지 연구하였다. 신고납세방식 조세에 구체적 집행행위가 항상 예정되어 있는지, 그 집행행위의 법적 성질은 무엇인지를 살펴보았다. 헌법재판소의 결정에 따를 경우 초래할 수 있는 여러 현실적 문제점 등을 정리하였다.<BR> 이 글에서는 신고납세방식 조세법령에 대한 기본권 침해의 직접성을 인정할 수 있다는 결론을 내렸다. 일반론으로, ① 납세의무자가 관련 법령에 따라 신고의무를 이행한 경우에는 구체적 집행행위가 없다. ② 납세의무자가 이를 다하지 않아 과세처분이 이루어진 경우에는 그 과세처분이 구체적 집행행위에 해당한다. 이때 그 과세처분은 집행기관의 재량이 없는 기속행위의 성질을 지닌다. 따라서 여전히 조세법령에 대한 기본권 침해의 직접성이 인정될 수 있다. 다만, 개별 헌법소원 사건에서 신고납세방식 조세법령에 대한 기본권 침해의 직접성 여부와 기본권 침해의 현실화 시점은 해당 법령 규정의 내용과 효과, 청구인이 주장하는 취지 등을 토대로 구체적ㆍ개별적으로 판단해야 한다.<BR> 헌법재판소가 신고납세방식 조세법령에 대한 헌법소원 심판청구를 예외 없이 받아들이지 않는 것은, 기본권 침해의 직접성에 관한 일반 법리와 어긋나고 헌법소원 제도의 본질과 취지에도 맞지 않는다. 납세의무자가 신고납세방식 조세법령에 대해 헌법재판소법 제68조 제 1 항의 헌법소원을 청구하는 것은 원칙적으로 허용되어야 한다.

Gender equality and legislative evaluation of gender-based laws in Korea

ABSTRACT Korea’s Constitution, Article 11(1) prescribes, ‘All citizens shall be equal before the law, and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic, social or cultural life on account of sex, religion or social status’. The Constitution prescribes equal protection of citizens regardless of their gender. In this article, the efforts and tools for ensuring gender equality in Korea are introduced. The discussion mainly focuses on gender impact assessment and how it improves equal protection in Korea. Gender impact assessment is necessary because it contributes to policy improvement by removing gender discrimination in law and policy. The assessment also helps in preparing a substantial policy that guarantees gender equality through equal policy benefit, equal participation, and equal budget distribution for men and women. This article also covers the role of the Constitutional Court of Korea as a reviewer of the constitutionality of gender-based laws. The Constitutional Court has the authority to judge a law as unconstitutional. This can be seen as a form of legislative evaluation in Korea.

헌법재판소의 결정을 통해 본 포괄위임입법금지 원칙 - 입법적 시사점을 중심으로 -

헌법재판소의 결정을 통해 본 포괄위임입법금지 원칙 - 입법적 시사점을 중심으로 -

‘의료법 제33조 제8항 관련 헌법재판소의 합헌결정’에 대한 평가 및 보완 입법 방향에 대하여 - 헌법재판소 2019. 8. 29. 2014헌바212, 2014헌가15, 2015헌마561, 2016헌바21(병합) 결정의 내용 중 의료기관 복수 개설금지 제도의 당위성 및 필요성을 중심으로 -

우리 헌법은, 국가로 하여금 국민의 건강을 보호할 의무를 지우고 있고, 이에 따라 구체화된 규범인 의료법은 의료기관 개설 등에 관한 사항을 상세히 규정하고 있는데, 그 내용 중 하나가 의료인의 의료기관 복수개설․ 운영 금지제도이다. 이에 대하여, 종래의 판례는 ‘다른 의사 명의로 추가 개설하는 의료기관에서 직접 의료행위 등을 하지 않는다면 여러 개의 의료기관을 개설․운영할 수 있다’라고 해석함으로써, 사실상 복수의 의료기관을 개설․운영할 수 있었다. 하지만 일부 의료인들이 다른 의료인의 면허로 의료기관을 여러 장소에 개설하고 이익을 극대화하기 위하여, 환자유인행위를 하거나 과잉진료 및 위임치료를 하는 등의 불법의료행위를 조장할 뿐만 아니라 국민의 건강권 등을 침해하는 현실적 문제가 발생하게 되었다. 이에 입법자는 의료법의 개정을 통해 의료인은 어떠한 명목으로도 둘 이상의 의료기관을 개설하거나 운영할 수 없도록 의료기관 개설제도를 정비하게 되었다. 이와 같은 개정 의료법 제33조 제8항이 위헌인지 여부에 대하여, 헌법소원과 위헌법률심판제청이 되어 헌법재판소에서 오랜 기간 심층심리 끝에 최근 합헌결정이 선고되었다. 헌법재판소는, 보건의료는 상거래의 대상이 되어서는 아니 되고, 공공의료기관의 비중, 영리목적 환자유인, 과잉진료 등을 방지하기 위한 점을 감안하여 ‘목적의 정당성’을 인정하였다. 또한 의료인이 외부 자본에 종속될 우려가 있는 점, 의료기관 개설 명의인과 실제 운영자가 분리되는 것은 우려스러운 점, 인간의 신체와 생명이 수단이 되어서는 아니 된다는 점, 현재의 의료체계상 과잉진료 확인이 불가한 점 등을 고려해 볼 때 ‘침해의 최소성’도 인정하였다. 나아가 ‘법익 균형성’ 등 기본권 제한의 원칙인 과잉금지원칙을 준수하여 합헌이라고 판단하였다. 이와 같이 헌법재판소가 우려하고 있는 영리추구, 과잉진료를 현실적으로 방지하기 위해서는 입법적 보완이 필요하다. 이와 관련하여 소비자단체는 입법의 필요성에 적극 찬성하고 있고, 보건의료 공급자 단체 또한 입법의 필요성에 공감하고 있다. 따라서 입법자는 헌법재판소의 이번 결정을 존중하고, 국민들의 입장을 반영하여 빠른 시일 내에 보완입법을 마련하길 기대한다.

「게임산업진흥에 관한 법률」상 본인인증제도에 대한 헌법학적 평가 - 헌재 2015. 3. 26. 2013헌마517 결정례에 대한 검토를 중심으로 -

「게임산업진흥에 관한 법률」상 본인인증제도에 대한 헌법학적 평가 - 헌재 2015. 3. 26. 2013헌마517 결정례에 대한 검토를 중심으로 -

Judgment of Unconstitutional Discrimination based on a Proportionality Review — With a Focus on Review over the Decision by Constitutional Court of Korea —

자유권의 비례성 심사와 평등권의 비례성 심사는 ‘피해의 최소성’(필요성) 내지 ‘차별대우의 필요성’(불가피성)에서 차이를 발견할 수 있다. 즉, 헌법에서 특별히 평등을 요구하고 있는 경우에 ‘차별대우의 불가피성’은 바로 ‘차별대우가 입법목적을 달성하기에 불가피한 것인지’ 여부를 심사하는 것을 의미한다. 다만, 차별적 취급으로 인하여 관련 기본권에 대한 중대한 제한을 초래하게 되는 경우는 자유권에서 말하는 ‘최소침해성’과 별반 다를 바가 없다. 따라서 비례원칙에 의한 자유권 심사와 평등권 심사는 상당히 일치하고 중복된다고 할 것이다. 개별적 평등권의 경우는 헌법에서 특별히 평등을 요구하고 있는 경우이기 때문에 입법자에게 인정되는 입법형성권이 축소되는 것은 당연하다고 할 것이다. 왜냐하면 형성의 자유는 일차적으로 규율영역에 관한 헌법규정의 존부에 따라 달라지기 때문이다. 그리고 평등권은 독자적인 보호영역을 갖지 않음으로 인하여 관련 기본권에 대한 제한의 정도에 따라 심사기준을 달리 적용하여야 하는 특수성이 존재한다. 이러한 점에서 헌법재판소가 판시한 ‘관련 기본권의 중대한 제한이 초래되는 경우’에 비례성 원칙에 의한 심사를 해야 한다는 것은 기본적으로 타당하다고 할 것이다. 비례원칙에 따라 심사하는 경우에도 심사기준의 문제가 아닌 심사강도의 문제로서 엄격한 심사에 대비되는 개념으로 완화된 심사를 생각해 볼 수 있을 것이다. 즉, 비례원칙에 의한 심사를 함에 있어서도 심사강도의 차이를 인정할 수 있을 것이므로, 이를 비례원칙에 의한 엄격한 심사와 비례원칙에 의한 완화된 심사라는 표현으로 구별해 볼 수 있다. 이것은 절대적인 구별이 아니라 기능법적 접근에 따른 동일한 심사기준에 의한 상이한 심사강도를 나타내기 위한 일응의 기능적 개념으로 이해해 볼 수 있을 것이다. 다만, 완화된 비례성 심사라 하더라도 비례원칙에 의한 심사인 이상 비례원칙을 구성하는 개별원칙들은 모두 적용된다고 보아야 할 것이다. 헌법에서 차별대우(우대)를 명령하고 있으나 차별적 취급으로 인하여 관련 기본권에 대한 중대한 제한을 초래하게 되는 경우는 헌법이 직접 차별을 요청하고 있기 때문에 헌법의 통일성 관점 내지 규범조화적 해석의 방법에 따라 비례원칙에 의하지만 완화된 심사를 하는 것이 타당할 것이다. 그리고 간접차별은 엄격한 심사를 요하는 은폐된 (헌법이 금지하는) 차별기준에 의해 발생한 차별대우에 대하여 강화된 심사를 하는 데 의미가 있기 때문에 입법자의 물적 차별이 간접적으로 인적 집단의 차별을 초래하는 경우에도 완화된 비례성 심사를 해야 할 것이다.There are differences in “minimization of damage”(necessity) or “necessity for discriminatory treatment”(inevitability) between proportionality reviews for the right of freedom and those for right to equality. That is, when the Constitution has a special request for equality, “inevitability of discriminatory treatment” means a review of “whether discriminatory treatment will be inevitable to the fulfillment of a legislative goal.” If there are major limitations to the concerned fundamental right due to discriminatory treatment, however, it will be not different from “minimum damage” in the right of freedom. Even though it is difficult to say that a review for the right of freedom is the same as a review for right to equality based on the principle of proportionality, a considerable part of the review content will match or overlap between them. Even in the case of a review based on the principle of proportionality, an issue emerges from the intensity of review rather than the criteria of review. A moderate review can be an opposite concept to a strict review. In other words, differences in the intensity of review can be recognized in reviews even based on the principle of proportionality, which makes it possible to distinguish a moderate review based on the principle from a strict one based on the principle. This is not absolute distinction, but it can be understood as a function concept of prima facie to show different intensity levels in reviews based on the same criteria of review according to a functional approach. It is, however, needed to apply all the individual principles in the principle of proportionality even in the case of a moderate proportionality review as long as the review is based on the principle of proportionality. In cases of major limitations to the concerned fundamental right due to discriminatory treatment under the constitutional order of discriminatory treatment(preferential treatment), it will be valid to do a moderate review based on the principle of proportionality according to the perspective of unity in the Constitution or interpretation of harmony between different norms since the Constitution makes a request for direct discrimination. Since indirect discrimination is meaningful to do a reinforced review for discriminatory treatment by the concealed (prohibited by the Constitution) criteria of discrimination that requests a strict review, a moderate review of proportionality will be required even in case of indirect discrimination against a human group by the legislators material discrimination.

Signaling the Turn: The Supermajority Requirement and Judicial Power on the Constitutional Court of Korea

In South Korea, a vote of at least six justices (out of nine) is required for the Constitutional Court (CCK) to declare a law unconstitutional. This supermajority requirement can lead to the odd situation in which a law stands despite a majority of five justices ruling it unconstitutional. In almost every other high court in the world, rulings of unconstitutionality of legislation are based on a simple majority. While one of the original rationales for the heightened voting requirement on the CCK was to curtail the power of the Court, this Article argues that it has had the unintended consequence of opening up other avenues of influence and power projection for the Court. In particular, the supermajority requirement has expanded the judicial signaling powers of the CCK, allowing the Court to directly and indirectly communicate and telegraph to lower courts, political actors, and the general public the direction of its jurisprudence. This has, in turn, strengthened the CCK’s authority and democratic legitimacy by muting accusations of judicial activism and encouraging a more gradual and incremental approach by the CCK to some of the most important and controversial social and political issues facing the country. This Article presents an original dataset of the CCK’s 4:5 decisions and examines a case study of the CCK’s adultery law jurisprudence, which illustrates the evolution of the Court’s view on the controversial law in South Korea and how the supermajority requirement allowed the CCK to gradually move towards the decriminalization of adultery in the country in line with changing social and legal norms.

Judicial Approaches to Political Questions: A Comparative Study of the United States and South Korea

Summary The United States Supreme Court (USSC) and the Constitutional Court of Korea (CCK) have adopted sharply different positions regarding the justiciability of “political questions.” On one hand, the USSC has generally refrained from adjudicating political questions, as shown in Nixon v. United States, Terlinden v. Ames, and Goldwater v. Carter. On the other hand, the CCK has regularly tried cases concerning political questions, as demonstrated in The Impeachment of the President (Roh Moo-hyun) Case and The Comfort Women Victims Case. The text of the U.S. and South Korean constitutions, their views about the proper role of the judiciary, and prudential factors explain why the USSC and the CCK have taken different approaches towards adjudicating political questions. Furthermore, the experiences of each country provide important lessons for the other: on one hand, the CCK experience has shown how a more active approach towards reviewing political questions can (1) create legal standards that keep government branches accountable in novel situations, (2) help prevent a political branch from acquiring tyrannical rule, and (3) enhance the judiciary’s legitimacy in the public. On the other hand, the USSC experience has demonstrated how a more restrained approach towards reviewing political questions may (1) strengthen the commitment of all branches to the principle of separation of powers (2) enhance the consistency and predictability of judicial decisions, and (3) lead to resolutions of issues by the branch with the most training and expertise.

The Constitutional Court of Korea as a Policy Actor in the Case of Commuting Accidents covered by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

The Constitutional Court of Korea as a Policy Actor in the Case of Commuting Accidents covered by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

한정위헌결정의 종말? - 최신 결정례를 계기로 살펴본 한정위헌의 본질: 양적 일부위헌 -

최근 헌법재판소는 ‘~라고 해석하는 한 헌법에 위반된다’라는 형식의 한정위헌의 주문을 내던 사안에서 ‘~부분은 헌법에 위반된다’라는 형식의 양적 일부위헌 주문을 냈다. 이 논문은 이러한 주문 표현의 변화를 계기로, 한정위헌결정의 본질에 대해 탐구하는 것을 일차적 내용으로 한다. 법해석학의 관점에서 볼 때, 규범이란 그 경계가 열려 있는 것이기 때문에, 경계가 희미한 영역의 경우 항상 해석자에 의한 경계확정행위가 필요하다. 해석자는 제정자가 이미 확정해 둔 규범의 경계를 사후에 발견해 내는 것이 아니다. 규범은 제정과 해석이라는 두 가지 행위를 통해 그 경계가 정해진다. 법률의 해석은 법률의 경계를 명확히 하는 행위이다. 법률의 적용은 그와 같이 경계를 정한 법률에 문제가 되는 사회적 사실이 해당되는지를 판단하는 행위이다. 헌법의 적용은 법률의 해석을 통해 경계가 명확하게 된 법률이 헌법의 테두리 안에 들어오는지를 판단하는 행위이다. 따라서 규범의 경계가 불분명한 법률에 대해 그 경계를 확정하는 법률의 해석과 그 해석 결과 확정된 규범에 대해 헌법 적용은 완전히 별개의 차원에서 이루어진다. 따라서 해석으로 확정된 법률에 대한 헌법 적용 결과인 한정위헌결정은 법률 해석방법 통제가 아니다. 또한 한정위헌결정은 그 경계가 불분명한 법률에 대해 헌법재판소가 경계를 분명히 한 후, 위헌인 부분에 대해서만 그 효력을 배제하는 것이므로, 본질적으로 법률의 가분적 일부에 대한 위헌결정이다. 따라서 한정위헌결정의 본질은 양적 일부위헌결정이다. 그렇기 때문에 한정위헌결정은 양적 전부위헌결정인 단순위헌결정과 동일한 효력이 인정된다. 한정위헌결정도 헌법의 적용인 이상 그 효과는 법률이라는 규범 다발 중 위헌으로 인정된 ‘부분규범’의 효력을 상실시키는 것이지 법률해석의 효력을 없애는 것이 아니다. 따라서 헌법재판소가 한정위헌결정을 통해 효력을 상실시킨 ‘부분규범’이 법원이 그 동안 그것이 합헌임을 전제로 적용해 온 규범이었다 하더라도, 한정위헌결정으로 인하여 법원의 최종적 법률해석권이 침해되는 것이 아니다. 한정위헌결정의 본질이 양적 일부위헌결정이므로, 그 주문은 최신 결정례와 같이 ‘심판대상조항 중 ~부분은 헌법에 위반된다’와 같이 내야 하고, 입법자는 한정위헌결정에 의해 규범의 일부가 규범의 세계에서 사라졌음을 일반 국민 입장에서 분명히 알 수 있도록 개정입법을 하는 것이 바람직하다.

Korean Constitutional Court and Constitutionalism in Political Dynamics: Focusing on Presidential Impeachment

The Constitutional Court of Korea, which should be a product of the June Democracy Movement in 1987, has transformed Korea's constitutionalism ever since its inception. The recent two impeachment cases decided respectively in 2004 against President Roh and in 2017 against President Park might be classic examples of how the state institutions including the Court interact with other institutions in a very political case in terms of political dynamics. In the impeachment case against President Roh, the Court positioned itself strategically by establishing the 'grave violation of law’ rationale, where it sided with the impeaching parliament by finding three counts of violations of law but dismissed the case in its entirety through the operation of the 'grave violation of law'. In the impeachment case against President Park, the Court basically followed the grave violation logic but reached a different conclusion to remove the President, which might be another strategic position taken by the Court, which is in line with the will of the super-majority of the Korean public. This paper aims to discuss how the Constitutional Court has developed its strategic position in terms of political dynamics, by analyzing the two presidential impeachment cases.