Constitutional Court: "Lawyer Exam Eligibility Restrictions Are Constitutional... Except for Military Service Period"

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Constitutional Court has ruled that the Attorney Examination Act, which limits the number of attempts to take the attorney exam to five times within five years, is constitutional.

On the 7th, the Constitutional Court announced that it made a constitutional ruling with a 5 (constitutional) to 4 (unconstitutional) decision in a constitutional complaint trial filed on the grounds that the Attorney Examination Act, which only exempts military service from the limit on the number of exam attempts, violates the right to equality. Article 7, Paragraph 1 of the Attorney Examination Act stipulates that one can take the attorney exam up to five times within five years from the month of obtaining a master's degree from law school. However, it specifies that the period of military service is not included in the five-year eligibility period.

Graduates of law schools, including Mr. A, filed a constitutional complaint after failing to pass the attorney exam within the 'five times within five years' limit set by the Attorney Examination Act. Some of the petitioners also filed a constitutional complaint against Article 7, Paragraph 2, which only exempts military service from the exam attempt limit.

However, the Constitutional Court viewed this provision as rational, stating that it is "in accordance with the constitutional requirement to prevent disadvantageous treatment due to military service." Regarding the possibility of recognizing other reasons as exceptions in addition to military service, the court judged that "the more exceptions are recognized, the more problems arise in fairness regarding exam opportunities and pass rates, which could undermine trust in the exam system." Since the legislative process considered that various circumstances could arise during the eligibility period, it is difficult to see this provision as irrational.

Furthermore, the court stated, "It is institutionally assumed that even if one enters law school, if they do not complete the education or fail the attorney exam, they cannot acquire attorney qualifications, and law school entrants are aware of this when enrolling," adding, "Confirming final failure at a certain point does not excessively restrict the petitioners' freedom to choose their occupation beyond the necessary scope to achieve the legislative purpose."

On the other hand, Justices Lee Seon-ae, Lee Seok-tae, Lee Eun-ae, and Kim Ki-young dissented, stating, "Besides military service, it is difficult to expect normal exam preparation and participation in cases of illness or temporary/permanent disability caused by it, or when attorney exam candidates are pregnant or give birth," and "Nevertheless, this exception provision only recognizes exceptions for those fulfilling military service."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.