Constitutional Court of Korea

  On April 10, 2025, the Court, in a unanimous decision of all eight Justices who participated in the deliberation, issued the following rulings on the order of priority for receiving monetary compensation among the surviving children of a deceased person of distinguished service to the State.

  1. The Court dismissed as nonjusticiable a claim challenging the portion of Article 13, Section (2), Item 1 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Act No. 16659 on November 26, 2019) that grants priority to one of the surviving children through consultation among them. Under this provision, if one child is designated through such consultation, that child is given priority.

  2. The Court held constitutional the portion of Item 2 of the same Section that grants priority to a surviving child who mainly supported the deceased person of distinguished service to the State over the other surviving children. Under this provision, such child is given priority in the absence of a surviving child designated through consultation.

  3. The Court held nonconforming to the Constitution the portion of the first clause of the first sentence of Item 3 of the same Section that grants priority to the oldest among the surviving children. Under this provision, such child is given priority in the absence of a surviving child who is designated through consultation or who mainly supported the deceased person of distinguished service to the State. The Court also ordered that the provision remain in effect until amended by December 31, 2026.

  On March 24, 2025, the Court rejected an impeachment petition filed against Prime Minister Han Duck-soo.

  Regarding the justiciability requirements, the Court observed that, under the main clause of Article 65, Section (2) of the Constitution, the voting requirement for impeaching Respondent while serving as Acting President is the same as that for impeaching him in his original capacity as Prime Minister―namely, approval by a majority of the total members of the National Assembly. Therefore, the Court found the instant impeachment petition justiciable.

  On the merits, four Justices (Justices Moon Hyungbae, Lee Mison, Kim Hyungdu, and Jung Jungmi) filed an opinion rejecting the impeachment petition. They stated that the impeachment grounds concerning 1) the exercise of the authority to request reconsideration of the bill on the appointment of a special prosecutor, 2) the declaration of martial law and the act of insurrection, 3) joint governance, and 4) the request for recommendation of special prosecutor candidates did not amount to a constitutional or statutory violation by Respondent. Although Respondent’s failure to appoint Justices of the Constitutional Court was found to violate, inter alia, Articles 66 and 111 of the Constitution and Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act, the Justices noted that such violations could not be deemed a betrayal of the public trust indirectly vested in Respondent through the President as the appointing authority, and therefore did not constitute grounds sufficient to justify removal from office.

  One Justice (Justice Kim Bok-hyeong) filed an opinion rejecting the impeachment petition, expressing the view that Respondent’s failure to appoint Justices of the Constitutional Court does not constitute a constitutional or statutory violation as well.

  One Justice (Justice Chung Kyesun) filed an opinion upholding the impeachment petition, expressing the view that Respondent violated the Constitution and statutes with respect to both the request for recommendation of special prosecutor candidates and the failure to appoint Justices of the Constitutional Court, and that the gravity of such violations was sufficient to justify removal from office.

  Justices Cheong Hyungsik and Cho Hanchang filed an opinion dismissing the impeachment petition, expressing the view that it was nonjusticiable because the impeachment resolution failed to meet the voting threshold for passage under the proviso of Article 65, Section (2) of the Constitution, which requires approval by at least two-thirds of the total members of the National Assembly when the Prime Minister is serving as Acting President.

  On March 13, 2025, a unanimous Court rejected the instant impeachment petition filed by the National Assembly against Respondent, Chairperson of the Board of Audit and Inspection. This petition alleged that Respondent severely violated the Constitution and statutes by 1) undermining the independence of the Board of Audit and Inspection, 2) conducting targeted inspections against the Chairperson of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission and others, 3) breaching duties as the Chairperson of the Board of Audit and Inspection, and 4) refusing to comply with the National Assembly’s request for data submission.

  Three Justices (Justices Lee Mison, Jung Jungmi, and Chung Kyesun) filed a concurring opinion, expressing the view that although Respondent also violated, inter alia, the Constitution and the Board of Audit and Inspection Act by amending a Directive to grant the Prime Minister the authority to request audits and inspections for the public interest, it cannot be concluded that these violations were sufficiently grave to justify removal from office. 

  On February 27, 2025, the Court, in a unanimous decision by all Justices, ruled on a competence dispute case between Claimant, the National Assembly, and Respondent, the Acting President and Minister of Economy and Finance.

  Claimant sought a decision (1) confirming that Respondent’s failure to appoint Ma Eun-hyeok, whom Claimant elected as a Justice, constituted an infringement of its constitutional or statutory authority (“confirmation of infringement of authority”); and (2) confirming Ma Eun-hyeok’s status as a Justice or ordering Respondent to appoint him as a Justice (“confirmation of status or order for appointment”).

  The Court upheld the claim for confirmation of infringement of authority, finding that Respondent’s failure to appoint Ma Eun-hyeok violated Claimant’s authority to form the Court by electing Justices. However, it dismissed the claim for confirmation of status or order for appointment as nonjusticiable.

  While all Justices agreed on the holding, three Justices issued a concurring opinion on the justiciability of the claim for confirmation of infringement of authority.

  On February 27, 2025, the Court, in a unanimous decision by all eight Justices, held that Respondent (BAI)’s inspection of Claimant (National Election Commission)’s personnel management status, including recruitment, conducted from June 1, 2023 to February 25, 2025 infringed Claimant’s authority to independently carry out its functions, as guaranteed by the Constitution and the Election Commission Act.

  On January 23, 2025, the Court, in a unanimous decision by all participating Justices, issued the following rulings on Article 17, Section (3) of the Act on Counter-Terrorism for the Protection of Citizens and Public Security (enacted by Act No. 14071 on March 3, 2016), which penalizes persons who recommend or instigate others to join a terrorist group: 1) the Court dismissed as nonjusticiable the claim against the portion of the provision penalizing recommendations to join a terrorist group, because the claim did not meet the requirement of relevance to the underlying penal case; and 2) the Court further ruled that the portion of the provision penalizing instigation to join such a group does not violate the rule against excessive restriction and is therefore not unconstitutional.

  On January 23, 2025, the Court, in a 4-4 decision, rejected an impeachment petition filed by the National Assembly against Respondent. The petition alleged that Respondent severely violated the Constitution and statutes during the plenary meeting of the Korea Communications Commission on July 31, 2024 (hereinafter the "Meeting") by 1) adopting resolutions with only two Commission members present, 2) not recusing herself from an agenda item concerning the appointment of executives at the Foundation for Broadcast Culture, 3) participating in the resolution on a request to recuse her and dismissing that request, and 4) recommending board members for the Korean Broadcasting System and appointing board members for the Foundation for Broadcast Culture.

  Four Justices (Justices Kim Hyungdu, Cheong Hyungsik, Kim Bok-hyeong, and Cho Hanchang) filed an opinion rejecting the petition, expressing the view that Respondent’s deliberations and resolutions at the Meeting are not recognized as a constitutional or statutory violation.

  Four Justices (Justices Moon Hyungbae, Lee Mison, Jung Jungmi, and Chung Kyesun) filed an opinion upholding the petition, reasoning that Respondent’s act of passing resolutions at the Meeting with only two incumbent members of the Korea Communications Commission present violated Article 13, Section (2) of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Korea Communications Commission, which sets the quorum for resolutions of the Commission. They found that this violation, in itself, constituted a grave statutory breach sufficient to justify removal from office.

  Additionally, Justice Kim Hyungdu filed a concurring opinion supporting the rejecting opinion, while Justices Jung Jungmi and Chung Kyesun filed a concurring opinion supporting the upholding opinion.

  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.

  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.

  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.