Where a request for a trial on constitutionality of a law was rejected in the first instance, and the appellate court again made a request for a trial on constitutionality of a law for the same reason, the case holding that it is unlawful in violation of Article 68 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

The case holding that Article 28 (2) and Article 51 of the Private School Act, which is the premise of the judgment in the first instance trial, is unlawful because Article 28 (2) and Article 51 of the Private School Act, which is the premise of the judgment, is detrimental to the utility of the public notice system of real estate and the safety of transaction, and is essentially infringed on the property rights of a third party that is acquired by the managers of private schools, and thus has violated the principle of excessive prohibition and thus has been rejected, and again, a request for an adjudication on the unconstitutionality

Articles 41(1), 68(2), and 69(2) of the Constitutional Court Act; Articles 28(2) and 51 of the Private School Act

Supreme Court Order 95Da13 dated May 14, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 1886) Supreme Court Order 98Kao137 dated April 11, 200 (Gong200Sang, 1229)

Hyundai Mutual Savings and Finance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Han-hwan, Attorneys Kim Si-help et al., Counsel for the defendant

The request for unconstitutionality of an applicant shall be dismissed.

Article 41(1) of the Constitutional Court Act provides that when a judgment on the constitutionality of a law is based on a premise of a judgment on the constitutionality of a law, the court in charge of the case shall request ex officio or by its decision to the Constitutional Court, and Article 68(2) provides that when a request for adjudication on the constitutionality of a law is dismissed under Article 41(1), the party who made the request may request adjudication on constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court. In this case, the party who made the request shall not again request an adjudication on the constitutionality of a law for the same reason in the litigation procedure of the case, and Article 69(2) provides that the adjudication on constitutionality of a law under Article 68(2) shall be requested within 14 days from the date the request for adjudication on the constitutionality of a law is dismissed under Article 68(2). According to the above provisions, the party who made the request shall submit an adjudication on constitutionality of a law within 14 days if the request was rejected, but may not request again an adjudication on the constitutionality of a law due to the same reason in the litigation procedure of the case (see Supreme Court Order 91.

According to the records, the applicant filed a request for an adjudication on the unconstitutionality of the above court on August 19, 198, on the ground that Article 28(2) and Article 51 of the Private School Act, which is the premise of the judgment, is detrimental to the effectiveness of the real estate disclosure system and the safety of transaction, and is essentially infringed on the property rights of a third party who purchased or acquired property as security, and thus is contrary to the principle of excessive prohibition, and thus, it is clear that the applicant filed an application for an adjudication on the unconstitutionality of the above law with the Supreme Court on October 1 of the same year, and again filed a request for an adjudication on the unconstitutionality of the above law with the Supreme Court on the ground that the above provision was unconstitutional, and thus, in the said litigation procedure, the application for an adjudication on the unconstitutionality of the above law was unlawful.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that the applicant’s request for proposal of this case is dismissed.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)