Whether Article 3 of the Act on Special Measures for Delayed Loans of Financial Institutions violates Articles 11(1)(Equality), 27(1)(right to trial), and 37(2)(Restrictions on Freedom and Rights of Citizens) of the Constitution (negative)

Article 3 of the Act on Special Measures for Delayed Loans of Financial Institutions provides that an auction procedure conducted upon a request by a financial institution shall be deemed to have been notified or sent by notification to the address indicated on the relevant real estate registration injury at the time of application for auction. In addition, it cannot be readily concluded that the address on the real estate registration injury is different from the actual address. In a case where the address is different from that on the register, the interested party may not lose an opportunity to participate in the procedure by filing a registration of change of address or reporting the address to the court. Thus, it cannot be said that the restriction on interested parties for public interest such as protecting the rights and interests of the majority of deposit institutions by preventing insolvency of financial institutions is unreasonable discrimination or restriction on rights and obligations. Thus, Article 3 of the Act on Special Measures cannot be said to violate Articles 11(1), 27(1), and 37(2) of the Constitution.

Articles 11(1), 27(1), and 37(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 3 of the Act on Special Measures for Extension Loans to Financial Institutions

Park Dong-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The request for adjudication on constitutionality is dismissed.

The reason for requesting an adjudication on constitutionality is examined.

The summary of the reasons for the application is that in an auction procedure under the Auction Act, which is conducted by a financial institution pursuant to Article 3(a) of the Act on Special Measures for the Delayed Loans of Financial Institutions, the notification or delivery is made by giving notice to the address indicated on the real estate registration injury at the time of application for auction, because it is deprived of the opportunity for interested parties, such as the debtor and owner, by recognizing special cases or preferential treatment, by allowing the financial institution to take part in the auction procedure, which is in violation of Articles 11(1), 27(1) and 37(2) of the Constitution.

However, it cannot be determined that the address of the real estate register injury is necessarily different from the actual address, and in a case where the address is different from the address on the register, the interested party may not lose the opportunity to participate in the procedure by registering the change of address or reporting the address to the court. As such, preventing insolvency of financial institutions, the degree of restriction on interested parties for the public interest, such as protecting the rights and interests of the majority deposit system, does not seem to be unreasonable discrimination or restriction of rights. Therefore, Article 3 of the Act on Special Measures cannot be viewed as unconstitutional.

No theory can be employed.

Therefore, the request for an adjudication on unconstitutionality is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won