In case where it is obvious that a lawsuit for retrial, which is a lawsuit on the merits, should be invalidated, whether the law claiming that the applicant for unconstitutionality is the premise of the trial.

Where it is obvious that a lawsuit filed by an applicant for unconstitutionality review, which is a lawsuit filed for review, will be tried against a judgment by dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction, the law claiming that the applicant for unconstitutionality is unconstitutional is not a Act which serves as a premise for the trial, and the court may not request the Constitutional Court to decide on

Article 107(1) of the Constitution, Article 41 of the Constitutional Court Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 90Ma866 dated November 28, 1990 (Gong1991, 578)

Applicant

The request for unconstitutionality shall be dismissed.

According to the records, Article 186 (1) of the Patent Act claiming that the applicant is unconstitutional as in the lawsuit filed by the applicant as the petitioner for a retrial is not a law that is not a premise for the above judgment as long as it is evident that the lawsuit for a retrial is subject to a judgment of retirement due to the violation of jurisdiction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 90Ma866, Nov. 28, 1990). Therefore, the application for a proposal for a retrial of this case is unlawful since it is impossible for the Constitutional Court to make a decision on the unconstitutionality of the above law.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the motion for unconstitutionality of this case.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)