Administrative

Constitutional Complaint Lawyer

Constitutional Complaint Lawyer | Understanding Your Case Before You File

Summary

A constitutional complaint (헌법소원) is a petition to the Constitutional Court of Korea asking it to strike down a statute, government order, or administrative act that infringes on a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution (헌법재판소법 제68조). Korea's system actually has two distinct tracks with different eligibility rules, filing deadlines, and procedural histories — filing under the wrong track, or missing the deadline, is one of the most common reasons complaints are dismissed without ever reaching the merits. This page explains both tracks, the exhaustion-of-remedies requirement, and what the review process looks like end to end.

Administrative · Constitutional Related law: Constitutional Court Act (헌법재판소법) Fundamental rights

Constitutional Complaint | Which type of constitutional complaint applies to your situation?

Not every grievance against the government qualifies for the same procedure. The Constitutional Court Act separates complaints into two tracks, and picking the wrong one can be fatal to a case regardless of its merits.

Rights-Violation Complaint

A law, order, or administrative act directly infringed your rights and no other remedy is available or effective

Legal basis	헌법재판소법 제68조 제1항
Court proceedings required first	Generally none, or none available
Filing deadline	90 days from knowledge / 1 year from occurrence
Typical target	Statute, decree, or non-adjudicable administrative act

This track is barred if a court could have reviewed the same act — the complainant must show remedies were exhausted or unavailable (헌법재판소법 제68조 제1항 단서).

Statute-Review Complaint

A court rejected your motion to refer a statute for constitutional review during your own litigation

Legal basis	헌법재판소법 제68조 제2항
Court proceedings required first	Yes — an underlying trial and a rejected motion
Filing deadline	30 days from notice of the rejection
Typical target	The statute applied in the underlying case, not the ruling itself

This track exists because ordinary courts cannot themselves declare a statute unconstitutional; only the Constitutional Court can (헌법재판소법 제41조, 제68조 제2항).

Constitutional Complaint | Who can file, and what actually qualifies

Before drafting a petition, the threshold question is whether the specific harm you experienced fits the categories the Constitutional Court is allowed to review. Many petitions fail here, before the substantive rights argument is even reached.

Standing and direct, present infringement

A complainant must show the challenged law or act directly, currently, and personally affects them — not merely a future or hypothetical harm (헌법재판소법 제68조 제1항). Complaints filed too early, before any concrete application of a rule to the complainant, are routinely dismissed for lack of ripeness.

Exhaustion of other remedies

If an administrative appeal or a lawsuit could have addressed the same grievance, that route generally must be pursued first; the rights-violation track under 헌법재판소법 제68조 제1항 is a residual remedy. The exception is where no other legal procedure exists to challenge the act at all, such as certain legislative enactments.

Court rulings themselves are usually excluded

A final judgment of an ordinary court is not, by itself, subject to a rights-violation complaint, which is one reason litigants sometimes feel the system offers no further review after losing in court. The narrow exception is where a court applied a statute that a prior Constitutional Court decision had already declared unconstitutional.

Constitutional Complaint | Deadlines that determine whether a case is even heard

Deadline compliance is checked before the merits, and there is generally no flexible extension. Missing either figure below typically ends the case at the admissibility stage.

The 90-day / 1-year rule

For a rights-violation complaint, the petition must be filed within 90 days of learning of the infringing act and within 1 year of the act occurring, whichever comes first (헌법재판소법 제69조 제1항). Both clocks run independently, so knowing about a problem late does not reset the 1-year outer limit.

The 30-day rule after a court's rejection

For a statute-review complaint, the petition must be filed within 30 days from the date the party receives notice that the trial court denied the motion to refer the statute for review (헌법재판소법 제68조 제2항, 제69조 제2항). This is a short window and typically requires the underlying case file to prepare the petition quickly.

Constitutional Complaint | What a decision can actually change

Understanding the range of possible rulings helps set realistic expectations, since an outcome other than full invalidation is common and still meaningful.

Unconstitutional, conditional unconstitutional, and non-conformity rulings

The Court can declare a provision fully unconstitutional and void, or issue an intermediate ruling such as a 'limited unconstitutionality' interpretation or a 'non-conformity with the Constitution' finding that keeps the law temporarily in force while ordering the legislature to amend it. Which outcome is sought affects how the petition should be framed from the start.

Effect on the underlying case

For a statute-review complaint, if the challenged statute is later found unconstitutional, the complainant may seek retrial of the underlying case that had been suspended pending the Constitutional Court's decision (헌법재판소법 제75조 제7항). Rights-violation complaints against administrative acts, if upheld, typically confirm that the act was void rather than automatically granting damages.

Constitutional Complaint | From initial review to final decision

Case intake and eligibility screening
Before filing, we review whether the grievance fits the rights-violation or statute-review track, whether remedies have been exhausted, and whether the filing deadline has already passed.

Petition drafting
The petition sets out the challenged provision or act, the specific constitutional rights implicated, and the factual basis for standing and timeliness.

Preliminary review (사전심사)
A three-judge panel screens out petitions that are plainly inadmissible; if not dismissed at this stage, the case proceeds to the full nine-justice panel (헌법재판소법 제72조).

Full bench review and briefing
The case proceeds to review by the full panel, which may request briefs from relevant government agencies and, in some cases, hold a public hearing.

Decision and, where applicable, follow-up in the underlying case
The Court issues a written decision; if a statute is invalidated, further action such as a retrial motion in the original case may follow depending on the track and outcome.

Constitutional Complaint | How fees are typically structured

Case evaluation
Initial review of the underlying facts, the relevant statute or administrative act, and whether the case fits an admissible track — this determines the scope of work before any fee is finalized.

Retainer fee
Based on the complexity of the constitutional issue, whether an underlying trial record must be reviewed, and whether the case involves the rights-violation or statute-review track.

Court costs and filing fees
Constitutional Court proceedings involve administrative costs distinct from attorney fees; these are billed separately based on actual expenses.

Success-linked fee, if agreed
Some engagements include an additional fee contingent on a favorable decision, agreed in advance and calculated as a fixed amount rather than a percentage tied to guaranteed results.

※ Costs vary depending on case complexity and specific circumstances; exact fees will be provided during consultation. No specific outcome is guaranteed.

Constitutional Complaint | Self-Check Before You File

1️⃣ Track Identification

Is the source of harm a statute, a presidential decree, or an administrative act — not a court judgment itself?
Did a trial court already reject your motion to refer a statute for constitutional review?
Has any other administrative appeal or lawsuit already addressed this same issue?
Is there genuinely no other legal procedure available to challenge this act?

2️⃣ Timing

Did you learn of the infringing act within the last 90 days?
Did the act itself occur within the last year?
If this follows a court's rejection of a referral motion, was that rejection notice received within the last 30 days?
Have you already missed one of these deadlines, and if so, is any exception plausible?

3️⃣ Standing and Concreteness

Can you point to a specific instance where the law or act was applied to you personally?
Is the harm already realized, rather than a future possibility?
Do you have documentation of the administrative act or court notice triggering the harm?

4️⃣ Practical Readiness

Do you have the case number and records of any underlying administrative or court proceeding?
Are you prepared for a process that can take a year or more to reach a final decision?
Have you identified the specific constitutional right (e.g., equality, due process, property) at stake?

Frequently Asked Questions

Q. Can I file a constitutional complaint directly against a court's final judgment?

A. Generally no — a final judgment of an ordinary court is excluded from the rights-violation complaint track (헌법재판소법 제68조 제1항). The narrow exception applies where the court applied a statute that the Constitutional Court had already ruled unconstitutional before that judgment.

Q. What is the difference between the two types of constitutional complaint?

A. A rights-violation complaint (헌법재판소법 제68조 제1항) challenges a law or administrative act directly, generally without a prior lawsuit. A statute-review complaint (헌법재판소법 제68조 제2항) can only be filed after a trial court rejects your motion to refer a statute for constitutional review during ongoing litigation.

Q. How long do I have to file?

A. For a rights-violation complaint, the deadline is 90 days from when you learned of the infringing act, and no later than 1 year from when the act occurred (헌법재판소법 제69조 제1항). For a statute-review complaint, the deadline is 30 days from receiving notice of the court's rejection (헌법재판소법 제69조 제2항).

Q. Do I need to have already lost a case in court before I can file?

A. It depends on the track. A statute-review complaint requires an underlying case and a rejected referral motion. A rights-violation complaint generally requires that other remedies were exhausted or unavailable, but does not always require a prior lawsuit.

Q. What happens if the Constitutional Court rules the law unconstitutional?

A. Outcomes range from full invalidation to a 'non-conformity with the Constitution' ruling that leaves the law temporarily in effect while ordering the legislature to fix it. If your case arose under the statute-review track, you may be able to seek retrial of your underlying case (헌법재판소법 제75조 제7항).

Q. Can a company or organization file a constitutional complaint, not just an individual?

A. Yes, corporations and other organizations can be complainants for rights that are compatible with their nature, such as property rights or freedom of occupation, though certain rights tied to individual dignity may not apply to them.

Q. How long does the process usually take?

A. Timelines vary significantly by case complexity and whether a public hearing is held; cases can take from several months to well over a year from filing to final decision.

Q. Is there a preliminary screening before my case is fully reviewed?

A. Yes. A three-judge panel conducts a preliminary review and can dismiss a petition that is clearly inadmissible without it reaching the full nine-justice bench (헌법재판소법 제72조).

Q. Can I still file if I missed the 90-day or 30-day deadline?

A. These deadlines are strictly enforced and there is generally no discretionary extension, so a petition filed after the deadline is very likely to be dismissed on that basis alone regardless of the underlying merits.

Q. What kinds of government action can be challenged?

A. Statutes, presidential decrees, ministerial rules, and specific administrative acts that lack any other avenue for court review can potentially be challenged, depending on which track applies and whether standing requirements are met.

Official References

개인정보처리방침

법무법인 프런티어(이하 “사무소”)는 개인정보보호법에 따라 정보주체의 개인정보 및 권익을 보호하고 개인정보와 관련된 정보주체의 고충을 신속하고 원활하게 처리하기 위하여 본 개인정보 처리방침을 수립·공개합니다.

제 1 조 수집하는 개인정보의 항목, 목적, 방법
제 2 조 개인정보의 처리 및 보유기간
제 3 조 개인정보의 제3자 제공
제 4 조 개인정보 처리업무의 위탁
제 5 조 정보주체의 권리·의무 및 그 행사방법
제 6 조 개인정보의 파기
제 7 조 의견수렴 및 불만처리
제 8 조 개인정보 처리방침의 변경
제 9 조 개인정보의 안전성 확보 조치

제 1 조 (수집하는 개인정보의 항목, 목적, 방법)
① 게시판 글 작성 시 필수 항목에 대한 수집목적은 ‘별도의 구체적 상담을 위하여’이며 수집항목은 ‘이름, 이메일, 연락처’입니다.
② 전항 외에 고객의 서비스 이용 과정이나 요청 사항 처리 과정에서 ‘IP주소, 접속로그, 단말기 및 환경정보, 서비스 이용기록, 쿠키’와 같은 정보들이 자동으로 수집 및 저장될 수 있으며, 이 때의 수집목적은 ‘사용자 홈페이지 이용, 사이트 이용에 대한 문의 민원 등 고객 고충 처리’입니다.
③ 사무소는 ‘홈페이지 고객 문의/고충 처리 시 전화 또는 인터넷을 통한 상담’과 같은 방법으로 개인정보를 수집합니다

제 2 조 (개인정보의 처리 및 보유기간)
관계법령의 규정에 따라 개인정보를 보존하여야 하는 의무가 있는 경우가 아닌 한, 정보주체의 개인정보는 원칙적으로 해당 개인정보의 처리목적이 달성될 때까지 보유 및 이용되며, 그 목적이 달성되면 지체 없이 파기됩니다.

제 3 조 (개인정보의 제3자 제공)
사무소는 정보주체의 개인정보를 본 처리방침에서 명시한 목적에 한해서만 처리하며 정보주체의 사전동의가 있는 경우 또는 개인정보보호법 등 관계법령의 규정에 의거한 경우에만 개인정보를 제3자에게 제공합니다. 사무소는 현재 개인정보를 제3자에게 제공하지 않고 있습니다.

제 4 조 (개인정보 처리업무의 위탁)
사무소는 현재 귀하의 개인정보 보호를 위해 귀하의 개인정보를 직접 취급 관리하고 있습니다. 단, 향후 보다 전문적인 서비스를 제공하기 위하여 제3의 전문기관에 귀하의 정보를 위탁할 필요가 있다고 판단되는 경우, 귀하의 사전 동의 하에 개인정보에 대한 취급을 위탁할 수 있습니다.

제 5 조 (정보주체의 권리·의무 및 그 행사방법)
① 정보주체는 개인정보보호법 등 관계법령이 정하는 바에 따라 사무소에 대해 개인정보의 열람, 정정 및 삭제, 처리정지 요구 등 개인정보 보호 관련 권리를 행사할 수 있습니다.
② 제1항에 따른 권리행사는 정보주체의 법정대리인이나 위임을 받은 사람을 통해서도 할 수 있습니다. 다만, 이 경우에는 개인정보보호법 시행규칙에 따른 위임장을 사무소에 제출하여야 합니다.
③ 사무소는 정보주체의 권리행사에 대하여 개인정보보호법 등 관계법령이 정하는 바에 따라 지체 없이 조치하겠습니다.

제 6 조 (개인정보의 파기)
① 사무소는 원칙적으로 개인정보의 처리목적이 달성된 경우 등 그 개인정보가 불필요하게 되었을 때에는 지체 없이 해당 개인정보를 파기합니다.
② 사무소가 관계법령의 규정에 따라 개인정보를 파기하지 아니하고 보존하여야 하는 경우에는 해당 개인정보 또는 개인정보파일을 다른 개인정보와 분리해서 저장·관리 합니다.
③ 사무소는 파기사유가 발생한 개인정보를 선정하여 개인정보 보호책임자의 승인을 받아 해당 개인정보를 파기합니다.
④ 사무소는 파기하여야 할 개인정보가 전자적 파일 형태인 경우 복원이 불가능한 방법으로 영구 삭제하며, 이외의 기록물, 인쇄물, 서면, 그 밖의 기록매체인 경우 파쇄 또는 소각합니다.

제 7 조 (의견수렴 및 불만처리)
정보주체는 개인정보 보호 관련 문의, 불만처리, 피해구제 등에 관한 사항을 아래 개인정보 보호책임자 또는 담당부서에 문의하실 수 있습니다. 사무소는 정보주체의 문의에 대하여 신속하고 충분한 답변을 드릴 것입니다.

개인정보 보호 책임자 : 변호사
연락처 : 02.

제 8 조 (개인정보 처리방침의 변경)
사무소의 개인정보 처리방침은 관련 법령, 지침 및 사무소 내부규정에 따라 변경될 수 있으며, 개인정보 처리방침이 변경되는 경우 관련 법령이 정하는 방법에 따라 공개합니다.

제 9 조 (개인정보의 안전성 확보 조치)
사무소는 개인정보의 안전성 확보를 위해 다음과 같은 조치를 취하고 있습니다.
관리적 조치 : 내부관리계획의 수립 및 시행, 구성원에 대한 정기적인 개인정보 보호교육 등
기술적 조치 : 개인정보처리시스템 등의 접근권한 관리, 접근통제시스템 설치, 고유식별정보 등의 암호화, 보안프로그램의 설치 등
물리적 조치 : 전산실, 자료보관실 등 개인정보 보관장소에 대한 접근통제