[위헌제청신청][공1987.8.1.(805),1125]
(a) Whether Article 11(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings is unconstitutional;
B. Requirements for filing a motion to the court for an unconstitutionality of a law against a party to the lawsuit
(c) Objects subject to examination of unconstitutionality and special provisions on litigation promotion;
A. Although the grounds of appeal are listed in the grounds of appeal under Article 11(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and limits the grounds of appeal under the Civil Procedure Act, the grounds of appeal are set up in accordance with Article 12(1) and (2) of the same Act, as the grounds of appeal open a path for appeal by permission, even in cases of a case without any grounds under Article 11(1) of the same Act, it cannot be deemed that the parties deprived of the rights to appeal to the Supreme Court
B. An application filed by a party to a lawsuit against a court for proposing an unconstitutionality of a law may be filed with respect to the case only when it serves as a premise for a trial of a specific case pending in a court which is in violation of the Constitution.
C. According to Article 6 (3) of the Addenda to the Constitution, the provisions of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which are specified by the National Assembly of Korea prior to the enforcement of the current Constitution, cannot be considered as the object of examination of constitutionality
(a) Article 11(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings; Article 108(1) of the Constitution; Article 6(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 11(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings; Article 20(3) of the
Attorney Shin Shin-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant
The motion of this case is dismissed.
1. Article 26(1) of the Constitution provides that "All citizens shall have the right to a trial by law" under Article 26(1) of the Constitution, and Article 393 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "the appeal may be made only on the ground that there is a violation of laws, orders or rules affecting the conclusion of the judgment." According to Article 394(1) of the same Act, six absolute grounds of appeal are stipulated as follows. Article 11(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provides that "An appeal may be made only on the ground that there is a cause falling under any of the following subparagraphs, which shall affect the judgment." Article 393 and Article 394(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "An appeal shall not be made on the grounds that there is a violation of the Constitution or an unreasonable interpretation of the Constitution," and Article 11(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when a judge or a judge's judgment on the violation of Acts, regulations or regulations, it shall not be made in accordance with Article 1 of the Civil Procedure Act."
2. Therefore, Article 11(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provides for a provision that limits the grounds for appeal under the Civil Procedure Act by stating the reasons to be the grounds for appeal in order to reduce the Supreme Court's work volume and prevent abuse of the right to appeal, while Article 12(1) of the same Act provides that "In cases where it is deemed that important matters concerning the interpretation of Acts and subordinate statutes are included in the grounds for appeal as provided in Article 11(1), and where it is deemed that "the Supreme Court" includes important matters concerning the interpretation of Acts and subordinate statutes before the judgment becomes final and conclusive, the Supreme Court shall open an appeal to the Supreme Court for the sake of equity in cases where it does not recognize that there are grounds for appeal in accordance with the provisions of Article 11(1) of the Act and Article 11(1) of the same Act does not clearly contravene the Supreme Court Regulations concerning the permission of the parties only when there is a request by the parties concerned before the judgment becomes final and conclusive, the Supreme Court shall open an appeal to the Supreme Court."
3. Next, as to Article 20 (3) of the Special Cases Concerning the above Special Cases, it is identical to the theory that the above provision provides that "no reason shall be stated in the written judgment" in the judgment of the court of the first instance. However, an application to propose a law against a court for the adjudication of the constitutionality of a specific law can be made in relation to the case only when a certain law is pending in the court, which is contrary to the Constitution, and Article 20 (3) of the Special Cases Concerning the Trial of Small Claims in the first instance. Since Article 20 (3) of the Special Cases Concerning the Trial of the Supreme Court is a special provision on the trial of the case, it is clear that the case of small claims in the first instance is not a case of the Supreme Court, and it is obvious that the above provision is not a premise of unconstitutionality for the judgment of the party members who are the principal lawsuit in the case of this case, and the Supreme Court's rejection of the application for a final appeal is not a expanded interpretation and application
4. In addition, as seen earlier, the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings is a law enacted at the National Assembly for National Assembly for National Assembly Legislation. According to Article 6 (3) of the Addenda to the Constitution, the Act enacted by the National Assembly for National Assembly for National Assembly for National Assembly for National Assembly Legislation shall continue to be effective and shall not file a lawsuit or raise an objection for this Constitution or for any other reason. Thus, the provisions of the Act on Special Cases Concerning National Assembly for National Assembly for National Assembly for National Assembly for the reason that the provisions of the Act on Special Cases Concerning National Assembly for National Assembly for National Assembly for National Assembly for National Assembly for National Assembly for National Assembly for
5. Therefore, the motion for proposal of this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)