JIPYONG LLC

The introduction of constitutional complaints against court judgments has opened a path to challenge final court judgments before the Constitutional Court.  This powerful remedy enables the Constitutional Court to review both the substantive unconstitutionality of a judgment and any procedural violations of fundamental rights-matters that often lie beyond the reach of the ordinary appellate system.  Where the Court finds a constitutional violation, it may revoke the judgment and remand the case to the courts for re-adjudication.  Cases once barred by the finality of court judgments can now reach the Constitutional Court.

This is not, however, a general avenue of appeal.  Under the Constitutional Court Act, grounds for such a complaint are limited to cases where: (i) a court judgment infringes a fundamental right by adjudicating contrary to a Constitutional Court decision; (ii) a court judgment infringes a fundamental right by failing to observe lawful procedures prescribed by the Constitution or statutes; or (iii) it is manifest that a court judgment infringes a fundamental right by violating the Constitution or statutes.

Additionally, petitioners must assess whether these grounds are met and prepare the petition within 30 days from the date the judgment becomes final.  Because this filing deadline is shorter than the 90 days generally allowed for administrative litigation or other constitutional complaints, the possibility of bringing a constitutional complaint against a court judgment should be reviewed without delay once the judgment is rendered.  As cases may be dismissed at the preliminary review stage where no grounds clearly exist, it is essential to accurately identify the constitutional issues and persuasively argue the unconstitutionality of the judgment.

Jipyong has built an extensive track record and deep expertise in constitutional litigation.  The firm has secured landmark decisions of unconstitutionality in cases of significant social impact, including those concerning the duration of lease provision and statute of limitations under the Civil Act, the immediate appeal provision of the Criminal Procedure Act, various campaign-related provisions of the Public Official Election Act, the judicial appointment provision of the Court Organization Act, and provisions of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act-thereby contributing to substantive reform of laws and institutions.  These achievements reflect a profound understanding of the Constitutional Court’s review methods and decisional tendencies, as well as a proven ability to identify and articulate constitutional issues.  Constitutional complaints against court judgments are an area where the expertise Jipyong has accumulated through its constitutional practice can be brought to bear with particular effect.

Beyond arguing unconstitutionality at the petition stage, Jipyong has consistently represented clients through the full range of subsequent procedures, including administrative litigation, civil litigation, and criminal retrials following decisions of unconstitutionality.

Even before this new system was introduced, Jipyong devoted concentrated study to Constitutional Court precedents and practice while handling constitutional cases.  Attorneys with expertise across constitutional adjudication, administrative litigation, and civil and criminal proceedings work in close coordination to analyze the unconstitutionality of final judgments from multiple angles and to determine promptly whether complaint grounds are met.  We take responsibility for the entire process-from filing the petition through the merits hearing, applications for provisional remedies, and the retrials and follow-on proceedings that follow a favorable decision with a single focus on restoring our clients’ rights.

Moreover, even where a favorable decision is obtained, the response in the ensuing retrial or remand proceedings can determine the ultimate outcome, making an integrated litigation strategy spanning both constitutional adjudication and court proceedings indispensable.  For clients who have just received a final judgment, the 30-day filing period can feel tight. Through prompt initial review, the Center for Constitutional Appeal will help clients reach a sound decision within that period.

As this system is still in its early days, the Constitutional Cour’s standards of review and operational practices remain in formation.  Drawing on the case experience it continues to accumulate, the Center for Constitutional Appeal will monitor developments in practice closely and provide clients with the most accurate and effective strategies available.  At this moment when constitutional complaints against court judgments are establishing themselves as a new avenue of redress, Jipyong stands ready to help our clients realize the full potential of this remedy.