"Transmitting Court Records via USB?"... Concerns Raised Over Record Submission Methods as Petition for Adjudication System Begins

Published 16 Mar.2026 15:49(KST)

With the promulgation of the revised Constitutional Court Act, the petition for adjudication system has been implemented, but concerns are growing regarding the procedures for transmitting court records. The Constitutional Court has proposed measures such as sending records via USB or adding a web hard drive to its internal network, but there are voices raising concerns about potential security incidents.

At a press briefing on petitions for adjudication held on March 10, the Constitutional Court responded to questions about how to transmit the vast volume of court records by stating, “Since petitions for adjudication are constitutional reviews, there is no need to examine every record.” The explanation was that the entire set of original records would not be exchanged.

On this day, the Constitutional Court said that, using methods already institutionalized by law, necessary records can be transmitted. The proposed methods were: △ the courts can save litigation records onto a USB drive and send them to the Constitutional Court; △ the courts can register as institutional members at the Electronic Constitutional Court Center and selectively submit necessary documents to the Constitutional Court; △ or, by securing a budget, the Constitutional Court can expand its internal network by adding a web hard drive to manage and send or receive more records.

Pixabay

"Who will be held responsible if court records are leaked?"

Some members of the legal community have raised concerns about the security of transmitting records, and criticized the lack of sufficient preparation before the system’s implementation. One legal professional, who requested anonymity, expressed concern, saying, “If the transfer of records between government agencies relies on USB drives or web hard drives, and an incident occurs where sensitive information contained in court records is leaked, who will be held responsible?” He also noted that this could constitute a violation of the Personal Information Protection Act.

Another legal expert commented, “It seems awkward for the courts to register as ‘institutional members’ in the Constitutional Court’s system just to submit documents.”

A senior legal figure remarked, “The system should be accompanied by the establishment of regulations and infrastructure before implementation. Nonetheless, confusion is inevitable at the initial stage of enforcement. It is questionable whether a thorough simulation has been conducted.”

However, according to the Constitutional Court, institutions such as the Ministry of Justice and the National Tax Service are also submitting materials as institutional members of the Electronic Constitutional Court Center. Therefore, the Constitutional Court explained that there is no issue with this submission method.

The Constitutional Court announced that it plans to establish a system for electronic linkage with the courts through consultation. A Constitutional Court official stated, “Basically, we plan to receive documents electronically. Mentioning the use of USB drives does not mean we intend to prioritize this method; rather, in cases where the volume of data is huge, this is simply an option to ensure that adjudication can proceed smoothly.” In particular, it was explained that the use of USB drives has not been finalized. Regarding concerns about the security of web hard drives, the official stated, “What we mean is that we will establish a web hard drive within the internal network, which is not a typical web hard drive, and since the Constitutional Court operates on a separated network, it is not vulnerable to security risks.”

Meanwhile, there are also opinions regarding the potential incompleteness of judicial review due to ‘selective record submission.’ One legal expert said, “In situations where the determination of a violation of fundamental rights is at stake, I am not sure if it is sufficient to make a judgment after reviewing only a portion of the records. From the petitioner’s perspective, there could be complaints that ‘my case was dismissed without even reviewing all my records,’ raising issues concerning the right to a fair trial.” On the other hand, another legal professional argued, “Since the purpose is to determine whether the ruling infringed on fundamental rights, it is unnecessary to review every record.”