Determining Prerequisite for Constitutional Adjudication

This study critically examines “trial relevance,” a key prerequisite for constitutional adjudication by the Constitutional Court of Korea. As the most essential procedural requirement, trial relevance serves as a standard to ensure case specificity, allowing the Court to carefully and thoroughly assess the constitutionality of statutes. Despite its importance, issues such as lack of objectivity and arbitrary application in the Court's decision-making process have emerged, undermining the effectiveness of constitutional adjudication. These issues further disrupt cooperative relations between the Constitutional Court and referring courts, while also contributing to the erosion of public trust in the judiciary. The study provides a detailed review of the normative basis and institutional significance of constitutional adjudication, analyzes the application of trial relevance in practice, and identifies critical flaws in the Court’s criteria by comparing cases where trial relevance was upheld and substantive rulings issued with cases dismissed for its absence. Based on this analysis, the study proposes active utilization of remedial measures under Article 28 of the Constitutional Court Act to strengthen cooperation between the Constitutional Court and referring courts, reducing conflicts and confusion in the adjudication process. Furthermore, it emphasizes the necessity for objective and consistent standards in dismissal decisions to better align judicial practices with constitutional values. Ultimately, the study underscores the importance of refining the criteria for trial relevance, not only to restore public trust in the judiciary but also to uphold the integrity and effectiveness of the constitutional adjudication system.