Constitutional Complaint Lawyer
Constitutional Complaint Lawyer | Understanding Your Case Before You File
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.
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.
| 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).
| 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
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.
The petition sets out the challenged provision or act, the specific constitutional rights implicated, and the factual basis for standing and timeliness.
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
Constitutional Court proceedings involve administrative costs distinct from attorney fees; these are billed separately based on actual expenses.
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?
