신행정수도후속대책특별법의 위헌성 여부에 관한 연구

Abstract

The capital relocation legislation enacted with a simple majority vote by the

National Assembly in January 2004 was declared as unconstitutional by the

Constitutional Court in October 2004 on the ground of its having violated the

unwritten(customary constitutional law) part on the nation's capital of the

Constitution which required an amendment to relocate capital as interpreted by

the Court. Another, albeit a little down sized, capital relocation legislation(called

Special Act for the Construction of Administrative Complex Town as Follow-Up

Measures for Capital Relocation) was enacted equally with a simple majority

vote by the National Assembly in March 2005 only in the space of three or

four months following the decision of the Constitutional Court in which the first

capital relocation legislation was held unconstitutional. The second legislation

retains almost all the provisions of the first legislation intact with few changes

including President and 6 designated ministries being exempted from relocation

and with addition of a few supplementary provisions. Upon constitutional

complaint, this second legislation was also put to constitutional scrutiny by the

Constitutional Court recently.

A study is conducted on the constitutionality of the second legislation. As a

result, an argument is made here to suggest that the second legislation is also

unconstitutional on the following four grounds. Firstly, the second legislation in

its contents is substantially identical to the first legislation that was held

unconstitutional in that it purports to relocate the substance of capital to the

particularly designated area that was already ascertained as the site for new...