본문 바로가기
  • Home

A Study on the provisional remedies in the Constitutional Court

  • DONG-A LAW REVIEW
  • 2020, (89), pp.1-31
  • DOI : 10.31839/DALR.2020.11.89.1
  • Publisher : The Institute for Legal Studies Dong-A University
  • Research Area : Social Science > Law
  • Received : September 8, 2020
  • Accepted : November 30, 2020
  • Published : November 30, 2020

Hyun Jai Kim 1

1부산대학교

Accredited

ABSTRACT

The petitioner needs an injunction to secure the effectiveness of the original trial and to save the rights in a provisional manner, but the Constitutional Court is silent on other unconstitutional legal trials, impeachment trials, and Constitutional Court rulings over the explicit provisions of provisional disposition only in the judgment of dissolution of political parties and power disputes. However, the injunction is also allowed in other judging procedures. Decision orders vary in order to achieve the purpose of provisional disposition. It is possible to have an injunction to suspend the validity of a problematic disposition, an injunction to seek the suspension of execution or procedures, and an active injunction to determine the temporary status, such as ordering the disposition of non-action or rejection. An independent injunction can be filed before the trial continues, and the Constitutional Court can reject or dismiss the request, but cannot make a quotation decision. In addition, an injunction by the Constitutional Court's authority is useful in the condition that the original bill continues. An immediate appeal against the injunction is not allowed under the single-judge Constitutional Court, but the petitioner's objection to the injunction is allowed in terms of guaranteeing the parties' participation in the process and the cancellation of the injunction is also possible if there is a change in the circumstances, such as the termination of the grounds for the injunction.

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2022 are currently being built.