"Administrative Agents Cannot Perform Certified Judicial Scrivener Work"

Published 25 Aug.2025 14:59(KST)

Certified Judicial Scrivener Work Ban for Non-Certified Individuals Ruled Constitutional
Constitutional Court Finds No Violation of Freedom of Occupation or Principle of Proportionality

[Constitutional Court Ruling]

The Constitutional Court has ruled that the provision in the Certified Judicial Scrivener Act, which prohibits anyone other than a certified judicial scrivener from performing certified judicial scrivener work, does not violate the Constitution.

Yonhap News

On August 21, the Constitutional Court unanimously ruled constitutional (2020Hun-Ma1491) on a petition filed by administrative agent A challenging Article 2, Paragraph 1, proviso of the Administrative Agent Act and Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 8 of the Certified Judicial Scrivener Act. The Court dismissed the part of A's petition related to the Administrative Agent Act and rejected the rest.

[Case Summary]

A filed a constitutional complaint against the proviso of Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Agent Act, which states, "Work restricted by other laws cannot be performed," and Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 8 of the Certified Judicial Scrivener Act, which refers to "incidental work such as consultation and advice necessary to handle work specified in Items 1 to 7."

A argued that, due to the proviso in Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Agent Act, administrative agents are prohibited from performing certified judicial scrivener work, and that the ambiguous wording of Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 8 of the Certified Judicial Scrivener Act violates the constitutional principle of prohibition of excessive restriction and infringes on the freedom to choose an occupation.

[Constitutional Court Decision]

The Constitutional Court held that not only the contested provisions but also Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Certified Judicial Scrivener Act, which states, "A person who is not a certified judicial scrivener may not engage in work prescribed in Article 2 as an occupation," do not violate the Constitution.

First, the Court noted, "The proviso of Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Agent Act was amended in March 2011 and has been in effect since January 2013," and stated, "A, who acquired the administrative agent qualification in December 2015, only filed the petition against the proviso of Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Agent Act in April 2021, more than one year after the alleged infringement of basic rights, making the petition inadmissible due to lapse of the filing period."

The Court continued, "While it is true that the term 'incidental work' in Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 8 of the Certified Judicial Scrivener Act allows for a somewhat broad interpretation," it explained, "incidental work refers to work that is ancillary to the main work enumerated in Items 1 to 7 of Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Certified Judicial Scrivener Act, and therefore cannot be considered an unclear concept."

The Court stated, "Although the Certified Judicial Scrivener Act restricts the freedom to choose an occupation, this restriction is subject to relaxed scrutiny because it relates to the legal lives of citizens and the judicial system." It added, "There are differences in qualification requirements between certified judicial scriveners and administrative agents, and since certified judicial scrivener work involves the preparation and submission of legal documents that affect citizens' rights and obligations, it cannot be said that the legislative decision to prohibit non-certified judicial scriveners from performing such work exceeds the bounds of legislative discretion."

The Court further noted, "By introducing the certified judicial scrivener system, the legislature aimed to facilitate the legal lives of citizens by allowing relatively broad certified judicial scrivener activities, and this does not violate the principle of minimal infringement." It concluded, "The public interest in ensuring the expertise and reliability of legal work outweighs the restriction on freedom of occupation, so the balance of legal interests is also recognized."