Constitutional Court of Korea

Decisions

Latest Decisions

Total
97
More Decisions
  • 2020Hun-Ma389, 2021Hun-Ma1264, 2022Hun-Ma854, 2023Hun-Ma846 (consolidated)
    Final decision
    nonconforming to the Constitution, rejected, dismissed
    Decision date
    Aug 29, 2024
    Case on National Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Addressing Climate Crisis

      On August 29, 2024, the Court issued the following rulings.

      1. The Court held that Article 8, Section (1) of the “Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth for Coping with the Climate Crisis” (the “Act”) does not conform to the Constitution. It ordered that this provision remain in effect until amended by February 28, 2026. This section requires the government to set “a national mid- and long-term greenhouse gas reduction target” “to reduce national greenhouse gas emissions by a ratio prescribed by Presidential Decree not less than 35 percent from the 2018 level by 2030.”  

      2. The Court rejected the claim challenging Article 3, Section (1) of the Act’s Enforcement Decree, which specifies the above reduction ratio as “40 percent.”  

      3. The Court rejected the claims challenging both “B. Sectoral Reduction Targets” and “C. Annual Reduction Targets” under “V. Mid- and Long-Term Reduction Targets” in the “First National Plan for Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth.” This administrative plan, adopted by the government on April 11, 2023, sets numerical targets for national greenhouse gas emissions and removals by sector and by year for the period from 2023 to 2030.  

      4. The Court dismissed the remaining claims and the motions to intervene as a Complainant and to intervene in support of Complainants.

  • 2021Hun-Ma460
    Final decision
    unconstitutional
    Decision date
    Jul 18, 2024
    Case on Disqualification from Judge Appointment based on Political Party Membership within Three Years

      On July 18, 2024, the Court, in a 7-2 decision, held unconstitutional a provision of the Court Organization Act that states political party membership within the past three years as a ground for disqualification from being appointed as a judge. The Court reasoned that this provision infringes the right of Complainant to hold public office.

      Justices Lee Eunae and Lee Youngjin filed an opinion of partial unconstitutionality, stating that while the portion of the above provision concerning the Chief Justice and Justices of the Supreme Court is not unconstitutional, the portion relating to a judge is unconstitutional.

  • 2023Hun-Ba78
    Final decision
    unconstitutional, constitutional
    Decision date
    Jun 27, 2024
    Case on Crimes of Publishing False Information and of Defaming Candidates under Public Official Election Act

      On June 27, 2024, the Court unanimously held that the portion of Article 250(2) (crime of publishing false information) of the Public Official Election Act regarding an individual publishing false information about a person who intends to be a candidate does not violate the Constitution. However, the Court, in a 6-to-3 decision, held unconstitutional the portion of Article 251 (crime of defaming a candidate) of the same Act concerning a person who intends to be a candidate, reasoning that it violates the rule against excessive restriction and infringes freedom of political expression.

      Justices Lee Jongseok, Lee Eunae, and Cheong Hyungsik filed a dissenting opinion, stating that the portion of Article 251 (crime of defaming a candidate) of the Public Official Election Act relating to a person who intends to be a candidate does not infringe freedom of political expression by violating the rule against excessive restriction.

  • 2020Hun-Ma468, 2020Hun-Ba341, 2021Hun-Ba420, 2024Hun-Ma146 (consolidated)
    Final decision
    nonconforming to the Constitution
    Decision date
    Jun 27, 2024
    Case on Impunity for Crimes against Relatives

      On June 27, 2024, a unanimous Court held nonconforming to the Constitution Article 328, Section (1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 7427 on March 31, 2005). This section remits punishment for the crime of obstructing the exercise of a right among lineal blood relatives, spouses, relatives living together, family members living together, or their spouses. 

     

  • 2023Hun-Ma820, 2023Hun-Ma862 (consolidated)
    Final decision
    dismissed
    Decision date
    May 30, 2024
    Case on Separate Collection of Korean Broadcasting System’s TV License Fees

      On May 30, 2024, the Court, in a 6-to-3 decision, rejected a claim against Article 43, Section (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Broadcasting Act, reasoning that it does not infringe the freedom of broadcasting of Complainant. This section prohibits the Korean Electric Power Corporation from combining TV license fees and electricity fees in its bill notice. The Court also dismissed a claim regarding the shortened legislative notice period during the amendment process of the above decree provision.

      Justices Kim Kiyoung, Moon Hyungbae, and Lee Mison filed a dissenting opinion, stating that the above provision infringes Complainant's freedom of broadcasting by violating the principle of statutory reservation. Additionally, Justices Kim Kiyoung and Moon Hyungbae filed a separate dissenting opinion, arguing that the provision infringes Complainant's freedom of broadcasting by violating the principles of due process and legitimate expectations.

  • 2021Hun-Ma117 and 55 other cases (consolidated)
    Final decision
    rejected
    Decision date
    May 30, 2024
    Case on Alternative Service for Conscientious Dissenters of Mandatory Military Service

     On May 30, 2024, the Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, rejected claims against the following provisions: 1) Article 18, Section (1) of the Act on Assignment, Performance, Etc. of Alternative Service, which sets the service period for alternative service personnel at “36 months”; 2) Article 21, Section (2) of the same Act, which requires alternative service personnel to live communally while serving; and 3) Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which limits alternative service agencies to “correctional facilities.”

      Justices Lee Jongseok, Kim Kiyoung, Moon Hyungbae, and Lee Mison filed a dissenting opinion, expressing the view that these provisions infringe freedom of conscience.

  • 2023Hun-Na2
    Final decision
    rejected
    Decision date
    May 30, 2024
    Case on Impeachment Trial of Prosecutor

     On May 30, 2024, the Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, rejected a petition for impeachment of Respondent in a case where the National Assembly had filed the petition. Respondent was accused of violating the law by instituting a prosecution on May 9, 2014, against Y.W. for breaching the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act (the “Institution of the Prosecution”) and by appealing a judgment of the appellate court, which had rejected the prosecution on the grounds of abuse of prosecutorial power.

      Justices Kim Kiyoung, Moon Hyungbae, Lee Mison, and Jung Jungmi filed an opinion upholding the petition, stating that the Institution of the Prosecution violated Article 123 of the Criminal Act, Article 4, Section (2) of the former Prosecutors' Office Act, and Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act. They argued that this violation of the law was sufficiently grave to justify Respondent's removal from office. Additionally, Justices Lee Jongseok, Lee Eunae, Lee Youngjin, and Kim Hyungdu filed a concurring opinion, suggesting the need for legislation regarding the statute of limitations on the prosecution of impeachment or on the filing period for a petition for impeachment.

  • 2020Hun-Ma542
    Final decision
    rejected
    Decision date
    Apr 25, 2024
    Case on Fingerprint Registration System under Resident Registration Act

      On April 25, 2024, the Court rejected claims against (1) the provision of the former Resident Registration Act requiring each resident registration certificate to contain fingerprints; (2) the provision of the former Enforcement Decree of the Resident Registration Act requiring the fingerprints of ten fingers to be put on the application form for residence registration card issuance; (3) the provision of the former Enforcement Rule of the Resident Registration Act requiring mayors of cities, counties, or districts to send the application form for resident registration card issuance to their jurisdictional police station; and (4) the conduct of Respondent, Commissioner General of the National Police Agency, in keeping and computerizing fingerprint information and using it for criminal investigation purposes.

      As to the above Enforcement Decree provision, one Justice filed a dissenting opinion that it infringes the right to informational self-determination (violation of the rule against excessive restriction). As to the above Enforcement Rule provision, two Justices filed a rejection opinion that it does not infringe the right to informational self-determination, four Justices filed an upholding opinion that it infringes this right (violation of the principle of statutory reservation), and three Justices filed a dismissal opinion that the claim against it does not meet the requirements of self-relatedness and presentness. As to the above conduct of Respondent, including keeping and using fingerprint information, four Justices filed a dissenting opinion (violation of the principle of statutory reservation).

  • 2020Hun-Ka4 and 46 other cases (consolidated)
    Final decision
    dismissed
    Decision date
    Apr 25, 2024
    Case on Constitutional Review Requests and Constitutional Complaints Involving Legal Reserve of Inheritance

      On April 25, 2024, the Court determined that (1) Article 1112, Item 4 of the Civil Act, prescribing the legal reserve of inheritance for siblings of a decedent, is simply unconstitutional; (2) Article 1112, Items 1 through 3 of the Civil Act, omitting reasons for disqualification of a legal reserve of inheritance, and Article 1118 of the Civil Act, omitting a provision for the mutatis mutandis application of Article 1008-2 of the Civil Act, are all nonconforming to the Constitution and are to continue to apply until amended by the legislature by December 31, 2025; and (3) Articles 1113, 1114, 1115, and 1116 of the Civil Act are constitutional.

      While agreeing with the Court’s opinion declaring Articles 1112 and 1118 of the Civil Act unconstitutional (nonconforming to the Constitution) as indicated above, Justices Lee Youngjin, Kim Kiyoung, Moon Hyungbae, and Kim Hyungdu dissented in part. They expressed the view that the following provisions are also nonconforming to the Constitution: (1) the second sentence of Article 1114 of the Civil Act, requiring a gift to be included in the calculation of base property for a legal reserve of inheritance, regardless of the timing of the gift, if both the decedent and donee recognized that making the gift would cause loss to a person entitled to a legal reserve of inheritance; and (2) the portion of Article 1118 of the Civil Act providing for the mutatis mutandis application of Article 1008, mandating a gift made by a decedent to a co-inheritor as a special benefit be included in the calculation of base property for a legal reserve of inheritance, regardless of the timing of the gift.

      Dissenting Justices Lee Youngjin and Kim Hyungdu also filed a concurring opinion on Article 1112 of the Civil Act and another concurring opinion on Article 1113, Section (1) and Article 1115, Section (1) of the Civil Act. The first concurrence agreed with the conclusion of the Court’s opinion that Article 1112 of the Civil Act is unconstitutional, but for a different reason. It argued that the portion of Article 1112 prescribing an equal inheritance share for the spouse and direct lineal descendants of a decedent also violates the Constitution. The second concurrence expressed additional views on both Article 1113, Section (1) of the Civil Act, which includes even gifts made for public interest purposes or family business succession in the calculation of base property for a legal reserve of inheritance, and Article 1115, Section (1) of the Civil Act, which provides for the return of the original object of property when returning a legal reserve of inheritance. This concurrence suggested that, although these provisions do not violate the Constitution, they present issues such as conflicts with the decedent's intention or the public interest, and thus, legislative amendments are desirable.

  • 2020Hun-Ma1079
    Final decision
    upheld (unconstitutionality confirmed)
    Decision date
    Mar 28, 2024
    Case on Excluding Recognized Refugees from Eligibility for Emergency Disaster Relief Payments

     On March 28, 2024, a unanimous Court held unconstitutional the criterion relating to households composed solely of foreign nationals in Section Ⅰ, “Criteria Regarding Household Composition,” Subsection 2, “Detailed Standards for Household Composition,” of the “Emergency Disaster Relief Payment: Criteria for Household Composition and Objection Processing (2nd),” an administrative rule issued by the relevant ministries on May 13, 2020. This criterion has restricted eligibility for emergency disaster relief payments to only permanent residents and marriage-based immigrants among foreign nationals and has excluded recognized refugees.