In the Constitutional Court Act, if a party requests an adjudication on the constitutionality of a law, whether it is against the Constitution unless the litigation case is suspended (negative)

Articles 41(1) and 42(1) of the Constitutional Court Act, Article 27 of the Constitution

Supreme Court Order 2007Ka12 Decided June 18, 2007

Applicant

The request for adjudication on the constitutionality of the instant case is dismissed.

The reasons for the application shall be considered.

1. Presumed facts

According to the records, the applicant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies and a violation of the Securities and Exchange Act at the Seoul District Court on September 20, 2000 and completed the execution of the sentence on March 10, 2001. ① The representative director of Nonindicted Party 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Party 1”) around July 18, 1996, the applicant purchased 140,000 shares of Nonindicted Party 2 corporation at a higher price than the reasonable price and made the shareholders of the said corporation obtain pecuniary benefits equivalent to the difference between the reasonable price and the purchase price, and made Nonindicted Party 1 obtain pecuniary damages equivalent to the same amount. ② On April 11, 2002, the applicant was prosecuted for the violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies and the violation of the said Act. The lower court’s judgment (Seoul District Court Decision 2002Da326814, supra. 207, the Defendant’s ground of appeal on the lower court’s ground of appeal No. 201, 2065, etc.

2. As to Article 107 of the Constitution

The individual provisions of the Constitution are not subject to the examination of constitutionality (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2000Hun-Ba38, Feb. 22, 2001). This part of the application is unlawful.

3. As to Articles 41(1) and 42(1) of the Constitutional Court Act

Article 113(1) of the Constitution provides for a quorum for a resolution of an adjudication on constitutionality of a law, but does not provide for the procedure, so this is entrusted to the broad legislative discretion of legislators. Thus, Articles 41(1) and 42(1) of the Constitutional Court Act do not stipulate a ground for suspending the adjudication on constitutionality of a law in a case where a party files an application for an adjudication on constitutionality of a law, even if the party does not stipulate a ground for suspending the adjudication on the relevant case, it does not exceed the scope or limit of the legislative discretion and do not violate the Constitution. This part of the

4. Among the applicant’s other arguments, it does not seem to include the purport of disputing the constitutionality of a law, which is the premise of the relevant trial.

5. Therefore, the motion for proposal of this case is unlawful or groundless, and is all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)