Consideration of the Effect of a Limited Unconstitutionality Decision in the Field of Taxation-Review on the Constitutional Court 2013hunma496 decision sentenced on July 21, 2022-

The long-standing dispute between the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court over the binding force of limited unconstitutionality decision is more than just a theoretical disagreement; it sometimes results in serious harm to taxpayers, as is the case with the targeting decision discussed in this paper. This case involved a long and complicated process of tax assessment - first instance dismissal of the plaintiff's claim - appellate decision upholding the plaintiff's claim - the Supreme Court‘s remand - appellate decision after remand - limited unconstitutionality decision - reconsideration dismissal - reconsideration appeal dismissal. The claimant of the target decision sought a constitutional challenge of ① the reversal of the decision to dismiss the reconsideration and the reversal of the decision to dismiss the appeal of reconsideration, ② the reversal of the Supreme Court's decision to remand the case and the reversal of the decision which is the target of reconsideration, and ③ the cancel of the tax disposition of the case. The Constitutional Court dismissed the first case, and dismissed the second case on the grounds that it did not constitute a ‘trial against the binding effect of an unconstitutionality decision on the law,’ and also dismissed the third case on the grounds that canceling the third case without canceling the second case would conflict with the trial’s binding effect. In cases such as this one, where a court violates the fundamental rights of the people by failing to recognize the effectiveness of a limited unconstitutionality decision, the Constitutional Court needs to actively recognize a petition for constitutional review of the original administrative decision in exceptional cases in order to secure the effectiveness of the unconstitutional decision, correct the legal order of constitutional supremacy that has been undermined by the court, and promptly and efficiently remedy the fundamental rights of the people. For the decision in this case to be meaningful, it should have reversed the judgment dismissing the petitioner's request for reconsideration by denying the binding effect of the limited constitutionality decision and also reversed the tax assessment in this case. It is troubling that the Constitutional Court could have done so, but instead chose to stick to a formalistic logic and ignored the taxpayer's remedy. In the future, we hope that the Supreme Court will first recognize the binding force of the Constitutional Court's limited constitutionality decision, and if the Supreme Court does not change its attitude, the Constitutional Court will take a more proactive stance in relieving taxpayers' rights, and the legislature should hurry to amend the Constitutional Court Act to fundamentally solve the problem.