LATEST DECISIONS
-
- 2024Hun-Ka12, 2024Hun-Ba287 (consolidated)
-
Final decision : nonconforming to the Constitution
Decision date : Apr 10, 2025 -
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.
more
-
- 2024Hun-Na9
-
Final decision : rejected
Decision date : Mar 24, 2025 -
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.
more
-
- 2024Hun-Na2
-
Final decision : rejected
Decision date : Mar 13, 2025 -
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.
more
