The adequacy of a motion for unconstitutional review on the ground that it violates Article 11(1) of the Constitution, Article 20(1) of the Constitution, Article 11(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, Article 6 of the Decree on Management of Multi-Family Housing, Article 4(1) of the Regulations on Standards for Housing Construction, and Article 20(1) of the Constitution (negative)

According to Article 41(1) of the Constitutional Court Act, the court (including a military court) in charge of the case may request, ex officio or by decision, the Constitutional Court to decide on the constitutionality of a law, only when the law is the premise of a trial on the constitutionality of a law. Thus, if the determination of the constitutionality of an order or rule becomes the premise of a trial on the constitutionality of a law, the request for an adjudication on the constitutionality of a law shall not be permitted. Thus, if the determination of the constitutionality of an order or rule is based on the premise of a trial, the request for an adjudication on the constitutionality of a law shall not be permitted. Therefore, Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, Article 6 and attached Table 2,

Article 107(1) and (2) of the Constitution, Article 111(1) of the Constitution, Article 41(1) of the Constitutional Court Act

Applicant

The request for unconstitutionality shall be dismissed.

The reason for applying for an adjudication on constitutionality is examined.

The summary of the reason for application is that Article 6(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, Article 6(1) of the Decree on the Management of Multi-Family Housing (the applicant seems to be unconstitutional, but it seems to be erroneous) and attached Table 2, Article 4(1) of the Rules on the Housing Construction Standards is excluded not only from those subject to installation of religious facilities in multi-family housing, but also from those subject to alteration of the purpose of use from welfare facilities of multi-family housing, thereby restricting the installation of multi-family housing according to the type of facilities. Therefore, Article 11(1) of the Constitution violates Article 20(1) of the Constitution.

However, according to Article 41 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act, the court (including the military court) in charge of the relevant case may request the Constitutional Court to make an adjudication on the constitutionality of an order or rule ex officio or by decision upon the party’s request, so if the determination of the constitutionality of an order or rule becomes the premise of a judgment on the constitutionality of an order or rule, the request for an adjudication on the constitutionality of an order or rule shall not be permitted, so the applicant’s request for

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges who decide to dismiss a request for adjudication on constitutionality.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)