Constitutional Court of Korea

On August 27, 2026, the Court, in a 5 (nonconforming to the Constitution) to 2 (unconstitutional) to 2 (rejected) decision, held that the portion of Article 76, Section (1) of the Military Service Act providing that “an employer shall dismiss a person falling under Item 2 if such person is employed” does not conform to the Constitution and shall continue to apply until the legislature amends it by February 29, 2028.

Two Justices (Justices Jung Jungmi and Cho Hanchang) filed an opinion for rejection, expressing the view that the above provision of the Military Service Act does not infringe freedom of occupational choice of persons subject to military service.

On August 27, 2026, a unanimous Court held unconstitutional the legislative failure to provide for the birth registration, under the law of the Republic of Korea, of foreign nationals born in the Republic of Korea.

However, the Court dismissed both the claim filed by the father Complainant against the above legislative inaction and the claims filed by Complainants (the father and his minor child) against the portion “citizen” in Articles 1, 2, and 3, Article 4, Section (1), and Article 8, Section (2) of the Framework Act on Education and against Article 19, Section (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

On July 23, 2026, a unanimous Court held that the following provisions are not in violation of the Constitution insofar as they provide that the rescission of a gift contract does not have any effect in respect of any portion as to which performance has already been completed: 1) the portion of Article 558 of the Civil Act concerning Article 555, which applies this rule to the rescission of a gift contract not made in writing; and 2) the portion of Article 558 of the Civil Act concerning Article 557, which applies this rule to the rescission of a gift contract due to a change in the donor’s financial condition.

The Court also held, in a 5 (constitutional) to 4 (unconstitutional) decision, that 3) the portion of Article 558 of the Civil Act concerning Article 556, Section (1), Item 2, which provides that the rescission of a gift contract due to the donee’s failure to perform the duty to support the donor does not have any effect in respect of any portion as to which performance has already been completed, is not in violation of the Constitution.

Four Justices (Justices Kim Sanghwan, Kim Hyungdu, Ma Eunhyeok, and Oh Young-joon) dissented, expressing the view that the above-mentioned portion of Article 558 of the Civil Act concerning Article 556, Section (1), Item 2, which limits the effect of rescission due to the donee’s failure to perform the duty to support the donor, is unconstitutional.

On July 23, 2026, the Court, in a 7-to-2 decision, held unconstitutional the portion of Article 3 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Teachers’ Unions (amended by Act No. 17430 on June 9, 2020) concerning unions of teachers under Article 2, Item 3 of the same Act, which prohibits political activities by university faculty unions.

Two Justices (Justices Kim Bok-hyeong and Cho Hanchang) filed a dissenting opinion, expressing the view that the above provision does not violate the Constitution.

  On June 24, 2026, the Court, in a 7-to-2 decision, held that the portion of Article 424, Item 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act that, where a person convicted by a final judgment has died, limits the persons entitled to request reopening of proceedings to the deceased's spouse, lineal relatives, or siblings, insofar as it applies to cases prescribed in Article 2, Section (1), Items 3 and 4 of the Truth and Reconciliation Act, is nonconforming to the Constitution and shall continue to apply until the legislature amends it by December 31, 2027.

  Two Justices (Justices Cheong Hyungsik and Cho Hanchang) dissented, expressing the view that the above provision is not unconstitutional.

  On March 26, 2026, a unanimous Court held unconstitutional the portion of Article 85 of the former Military Service Act (amended by Act No. 15054 on November 28, 2017 and before amendment by Act No. 20643 on January 7, 2025) concerning the case where a person who, having a duty under Article 6 to deliver a notice of call-up for military mobilization training, fails to deliver the notice without justifiable grounds. That provision criminally penalizes a person who, in the absence of a person liable for military service, receives the notice and, having a duty to deliver it to that person, fails to do so without justifiable grounds.

  On February 26, 2026, the Court issued the following rulings on provisions of the “Assembly and Demonstration Act” (the “ADA”) that impose a prior notification requirement for outdoor assemblies and provide for criminal punishment, without exception, for violations of that requirement.

   1. Punishment Provision

  In a 4 (nonconforming to the Constitution) to 4 (unconstitutional) to 1 (constitutional) decision, the Court held that Article 22, Section (2) of the ADA, insofar as it pertains to the portion of Article 6, Section (1) concerning an outdoor assembly, infringes freedom of assembly and is nonconforming to the Constitution. The provision imposes criminal punishment, uniformly and without exception, for violations of the prior notification requirement for outdoor assemblies. The Court ordered that the provision remain applicable until it is amended by August 31, 2027.

  One Justice (Justice Cho Hanchang) filed a dissenting opinion, expressing the view that the provision does not violate the principle of proportionality between crime and punishment or the principle of equality.

   2. Notification Provision

   The Court, in a 7-to-2 decision, held that the portion of the main clause of Article 6, Section (1) of the ADA concerning an outdoor assembly does not violate the Constitution. The provision imposes the prior notification requirement for outdoor assemblies.

  Two Justices (Justices Kim Bok-hyeong and Ma Eunhyeok) filed a dissenting opinion, expressing the view that the provision infringes freedom of assembly and is unconstitutional.

  On January 29, 2026, a unanimous Court held that the act of Respondent, the warden of Jeju Prison, in refusing on February 18, 2023, on the ground that it was Saturday night, to permit an attorney visit requested by counsel for Complainant, who sought to file a petition for review of the legality of his arrest, infringed the arrestee Complainant’s right to the assistance of counsel and was therefore unconstitutional.

  On January 29, 2026, the Court, in a 7-to-2 decision, held Article 189, Section (1) of the Public Official Election Act unconstitutional. The provision defines a political party eligible for allocation of proportional representation seats as one that has obtained at least three percent of the total number of valid nationwide votes in the election of proportional representation members of the National Assembly or has secured at least five seats in the election of constituency members of the National Assembly.

  Two Justices (Justices Cheong Hyungsik and Cho Hanchang) filed a dissenting opinion stating that the provision does not infringe Complainants’ right to equality and other fundamental rights. Two Justices (Justices Kim Sanghwan and Jung Jungmi) filed a concurring opinion in support of the opinion of the Court.

  With respect to the claim filed by Complainant Social Transformation Workers’ Party, one of Complainants, the Court unanimously dismissed the claim because it had not been registered as a political party with the National Election Commission.

  On December 18, 2025, a unanimous Court ruled as follows.

  1. The Court rejected the claim challenging the portion of the phrase “motor vehicle, etc.” in both Article 43 and the main clause of Article 80, Section (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning personal mobility devices, and challenging Article 156, Item 13 of the former Road Traffic Act. These provisions require a person intending to operate a “personal mobility device” to hold at least a license for a motorized bicycle and impose a criminal fine or other penalties for violations.

  2. The Court rejected the claim challenging the portion of the phrase “bicycle, etc.” in Article 50, Section (4) of the Road Traffic Act concerning personal mobility devices, and challenging Article 156, Item 6 and Article 160, Section (2), Item 3 of the same Act insofar as they pertain to that portion. These provisions impose an obligation on a “personal mobility device” operator to ensure that both the operator and passenger wear personal protective equipment and provide for a criminal or administrative fine or other penalties for violations.

  However, as to Complainants who had already obtained a regular driver’s license before the relevant Act entered into force, the Court dismissed as nonjusticiable their claims concerning the license provisions listed in 1. on the ground that those Complainants failed to satisfy the requirement of self-relatedness.