Constitutional Court Passes Two More Trial Complaints in Preliminary Review: Reconstruction Land Payment and Search Warrant Cases

"Court’s Interpretation of Law Deemed Unconstitutional"

The Constitutional Court of Korea has newly referred two cases for trial cancellation to the full bench. As a result, since the introduction of the trial complaint system, a total of three cases have now been transferred to the full bench.

Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul. Photo by Yonhap News

On May 12, the Constitutional Court announced that, following deliberation by a panel of three designated justices, it referred to the full bench two cases for trial cancellation filed against the courts—one by the A Apartment Reconstruction Maintenance Association and another by an attorney surnamed Kim. Of the 651 trial complaints submitted since the introduction of the system on March 12, 523 had been dismissed as of that day.

Both trial complaints that passed preliminary review on this day claim that “the courts unconstitutionally interpreted the law, infringing upon basic rights.”

The A Reconstruction Association entered into a land purchase agreement with the Seoul Metropolitan Government and Yeongdeungpo-gu in 2017 and paid the purchase price. However, it later filed a lawsuit against these entities seeking restitution of unjust enrichment, arguing that the contract was invalid. After the Supreme Court remanded the case, the Seoul High Court ultimately delivered a final ruling against the association on March 7 of this year.

The association maintains that the second sentence of Article 65(1) of the Urban and Residential Environment Improvement Act, which stipulates that land provided for general public use among public property shall be transferred free of charge to a public project implementer, should also be interpreted as applying to private project implementers under Article 65(2) of the same law.

Represented by the law firm Gwangjang, the association filed the trial complaint, asserting that “the court's rulings unconstitutionally interpreted the relevant law, infringing upon the claimant’s rights to equality, property, and access to trial.”

The other case involves Attorney B, who filed a trial complaint seeking the cancellation of a Supreme Court decision related to the execution of a search and seizure warrant by Special Prosecutor Ahn Mi-young’s team in the investigation of the late Sergeant Lee Yeram’s death. Attorney B claimed that, during the search and seizure conducted in July 2022 by Special Prosecutor Ahn Mi-young while he was a reference witness, a copy of the warrant was not provided and the requirements for search and seizure were not met, so he filed an immediate complaint with the court.

On May 2023, the Seoul Central District Court partially accepted Attorney B’s complaint but determined that a reference witness does not have the right to receive a copy of the search and seizure warrant. The Supreme Court also dismissed Attorney B’s subsequent appeal on February 26, stating that “there was no violation of the Constitution, laws, orders, or rules that affected the lower court’s judgment.”

Attorney B filed a trial complaint with the Constitutional Court, arguing that “the Supreme Court’s decision unconstitutionally interpreted and applied Articles 118 and 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the provision of warrant copies, thereby infringing on rights to equality, privacy and freedom, and access to trial.”

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