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
Sung, Nak In
Issue Date
서울대학교 법학연구소
법학, Vol.53 No.2, pp. 187-218
Republic of KoreaConstitutional Court of KoreaConstitutional LawConstitutional LitigationConstitutional Adjudication in KoreaHistory of Korean Constitutional LawJudicial ReviewThe constitutionality of a law upon the request of the courtsImpeachmentDissolution of a political partyCompetence disputes between State agenciesbetween State agencies and local governmentsbetween local governmentConstitutional complaint as prescribed by ActDecision of the Constitutional CourtModified DecisionsUnconformable DecisionDecision Requesting LegislationLimited Constitutional Decision대한민국헌법재판소헌법위헌법률심판헌법소원심판탄핵심판권한쟁의심판위헌정당해산심판헌법재판소의 결정변형결정위헌불선언결정한정합헌결정한정위헌결정헌법불합치결정
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
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.
Files in This Item:
Appears in Collections:
College of Law/Law School (법과대학/대학원)The Law Research Institute (법학연구소) 법학법학 Volume 53, Number 1/4 (2012)
  • mendeley

Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.