Publications
Detailed Information
A Perspective on the Development of Constitutional Adjudication in Korea : 증권 관련 집단소송법에 따른 절차의 특징
Cited 0 time in
Web of Science
Cited 0 time in Scopus
- Authors
- Issue Date
- 2012-06
- Publisher
- 서울대학교 법학연구소
- Citation
- 법학, Vol.53 No.2, pp. 187-218
- Keywords
- Republic of Korea ; Constitutional Court of Korea ; Constitutional Law ; Constitutional Litigation ; Constitutional Adjudication in Korea ; History of Korean Constitutional Law ; Judicial Review ; The constitutionality of a law upon the request of the courts ; Impeachment ; Dissolution of a political party ; Competence disputes between State agencies ; between State agencies and local governments ; between local government ; Constitutional complaint as prescribed by Act ; Decision of the Constitutional Court ; Modified Decisions ; Unconformable Decision ; Decision Requesting Legislation ; Limited Constitutional Decision ; 대한민국 ; 헌법재판소 ; 헌법 ; 위헌법률심판 ; 헌법소원심판 ; 탄핵심판 ; 권한쟁의심판 ; 위헌정당해산심판 ; 헌법재판소의 결정 ; 변형결정 ; 위헌불선언결정 ; 한정합헌결정 ; 한정위헌결정 ; 헌법불합치결정
- Description
- This paper is a revised version of the presentation made during a symposium
(Constitutionalism in Asia and the Constitutional Court) organized by Seoul National
University Law Research Institute on December 12, 2011. Researches presented during
a symposium organized by the University of Freiburg in July 2004 were published,
along with this authors research (SUNG, NAK IN, A Perspective on Development
of Constitutional Adjudication in Korea, in Rechtsreform in Deutschland und Korea
im Vergleich, Duncker & Humbolt : Berlin, 2006. 11.). This paper is a revised
version of this authors research and is intended to be written as a new paper
- Abstract
- 1. According to the Article 111 (2) of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court
shall be composed of nine Justices qualified to be court judges. This qualification
in Justice is very narrow. In spite of the Constitutional Courts establishment
as an independent judicial organization, the limit of qualification is inconsistent
in view of the Constitutional Adjudications nature.
2. The Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court mutually maintain independent
and horizontal relations. But the separation of jurisdictions leaves much room
for jurisdictional disputes and the tension in the relationship between the
National Assembly and the Constitutional Court is well expected.
3. The Constitutional Court may decide on the case as nonconforming to the
constitution, unconstitutional in part, constitutional in part, as well as
unconstitutional or constitutional. If the ordinary court and the Supreme Court
do not accept modified decisions like decision of limited constitutionality,
limited unconstitutionality, there could be a possibility of conflict. However,
the Constitutional Court has decided that all of the different levels of
judgments have binding powers, and it is only a matter of when such modified
decisions should be given.
1948년 대한민국헌법이 제정된 이래 1987년 헌법은 아홉 번째 개정헌법이다.
그간 헌법재판기관의 변천사를 보면, 제1공화국 헌법위원회, 제2공화국 헌법재판소,
제3공화국 대법원, 제4공화국과 제5공화국의 헌법위원회 제도를 거쳤다. 하지만
제2공화국의 헌법재판소는 1961년 5.16 군사쿠데타로 인하여 설치되지도 못했다.
그 이후 1971년의 국가배상법 제2조 제1항 단서의 군인과 군무원에 대한 이중배
상금지조항에 대한 위헌결정이 유일한 위헌결정이었다.
1987년 헌법에서 헌법재판소가 도입된 이래 헌법재판소는 수많은 위헌법률결정,
헌법소원 인용, 권한쟁의 인용 등을 통해서 국민 속에 각인되어 왔다. 하지만 수도
이전특별법 위헌결정에서 보여준 바와 같이 정치권으로부터 거센 비판을 받기도
했다. 또한 변형결정으로 인하여 대법원과의 갈등도 일어났다. 그럼에도 헌법재판소는 대한민국 민주주의를 상징하는 기관으로 확고하게 자리 잡았다.
- ISSN
- 1598-222X
- Language
- English
- Files in This Item:
- Appears in Collections:
Item View & Download Count
Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.