Case on the Retrial of the Decision to Dissolve the Unified Progressive Party

[2015Hun-A20, May 26, 2016]

In this case, the Constitutional Court held that the request for a retrial on the decision on the Dissolution of the Unified Progressive Party (2013Hun-Da1), pronounced on December 19, 2014, is nonjusticiable.

Background of the Case

The claimant requesting a retrial was dissolved by the decision of the Constitutional Court on December 19, 2014, ordering the dissolution of the political party, and the five Members of the National Assembly belonging to the claimant forfeited their seats in the National Assembly. The claimant filed a motion with the Constitutional Court to request a new trial to overturn the decision to dismiss the Unified Progressive Party on February 16, 2015, on the ground that, among the criminal cases that served as the premises for the decision requested to be retried, the charges of conspiracy of insurrection, etc. were acquitted in the Supreme Court (Supreme Court Decision 2014Do10978) on January 22, 2015, and thus the trial that served as the basis for the decision requested to be retried had been altered.

Summary of the Decision

1. Whether a Retrial on the Decision to Dissolve a Political Party Should Be Permitted

As a rule, adjudication on the dissolution of a political party is only effective to the extent of the political party in question, and a decision ordering dissolution has the effect of prohibiting the establishment of a substitute party or one with similar principles to the dissolved party,

which means that the failure to rectify a decision that contains an error may incur undue restrictions on the political decision-making of future generations. Thus, in the procedures of adjudication on the dissolution of a political party, a retrial should be permitted, as the benefits of the concrete validity of granting a retrial outweigh the benefits of the legal stability that can be achieved by not granting a retrial. Meanwhile, as a rule, the provisions on retrial in the Civil Procedure Act shall applymutatis mutandisto the procedures for the retrial at issue.

2. Whether the Request for Retrial in this Case Is Nonjusticiable

A. The subject matters of review in the decision requested to be retried were whether the objectives or activities of the claimant were contrary to the basic order of democracy; whether the decision to dissolve the political party related to the claimant should be pronounced; and if the dissolution of the political party is ordered, whether the Members of the National Assembly belonging to that political party should forfeit their seats in the National Assembly. The conviction or acquittal of the charges of conspiracy of insurrection in the criminal cases on plots for sedition, etc. was neither the subject matter of review in the decision requested to be retried, nor a logical prerequisite to be reviewed with priority. Thus, even if the Supreme Court has denied the existence of an underground revolutionary organization and the establishment of a crime of plotting for sedition in the criminal cases on the conspiracy of insurrection, etc. involving Lee ○-Ki, etc., that does not necessarily mean that the decision requested to be retried constitutes the grounds for retrial under Article 451 Section 1 Item 8 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Claims (by the claimant party) that the decision requested to be retried was illegal in that it forfeited the National Assembly seats of the Members without proper legal grounds, or that it later decided to correct some facts ineligible for correction, are merely related to the

misunderstanding of facts or legal principles (by the decision requested to be retried by the Constitutional Court), and therefore, do not satisfy any of the grounds for retrial stipulated in Article 451 Section 1 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Concurring Opinion of Three Justices

* Justice Ahn Chang-Ho, Justice Seo Ki-Seog, and Justice Cho Yong-Ho

When a decision ordering the dissolution of a political party is pronounced, the existence and activities of the political party are prohibited, the remaining assets of the political party revert to the National Treasury, and the establishment of a party that has similar principles to the dissolved party, or a substitute party, is prohibited. As the National Assembly Members belonging to the political party lose their seats in the National Assembly, vacancy elections will take place for regional seats that have lost their Members, bringing change to the composition of the National Assembly with the election of new National Assembly Members. For such reasons, the effect of a decision to dissolve a political party has a far-reaching influence on the political and social order of the Korean society, and thus permitting a retrial may threaten the foundations of legal stability.

Therefore, in the case of a decision ordering the dissolution of a political party, the benefits of the legal stability that can be achieved by not granting a retrial outweigh the benefits of the concrete validity of granting a retrial, and thus the nature of the relevant decision does not allow for objection through retrial.