Landmark judicial law reform takes effect, with several people filing complaints
Published: 12 Mar. 2026, 16:20
Updated: 12 Mar. 2026, 17:59
![The Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on March 12 [NEWS1]](https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/data/photo/2026/03/12/2d9d2ba4-35c2-420c-bbe9-1b8beb4afa29.jpg)
The Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on March 12 [NEWS1]
A Syrian national facing deportation from South Korea filed the first constitutional complaint against a court ruling early Thursday, shortly after a new law allowing such petitions took effect.
The petition was submitted online at 12:10 a.m. — just 10 minutes after the law was promulgated and entered into force.
The new system, introduced under a revised Constitutional Court Act, allows individuals to file a constitutional complaint if their basic rights were allegedly violated because a court ruling failed to follow procedures required by the Constitution or other laws. Until now, court judgments were excluded from constitutional petitions in South Korea, meaning only laws themselves could be reviewed for constitutionality.
The petitioner is a Syrian national who had operated a used auto parts business, traveling between Syria and South Korea. When the Syrian civil war broke out in 2011, the man fled to South Korea with his wife and four children.
![Kurdish people who were displaced during the Syrian civil war return to their hometowns as part of an agreement between Syrian Democratic Forces and the Syrian government, in Hasakah, Syria, March 9. [REUTERS/YONHAP]](https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/data/photo/2026/03/12/4cb369a8-6ea4-4386-9cd3-701f236b4e58.jpg)
Kurdish people who were displaced during the Syrian civil war return to their hometowns as part of an agreement between Syrian Democratic Forces and the Syrian government, in Hasakah, Syria, March 9. [REUTERS/YONHAP]
While South Korea did not recognize him as a refugee, authorities granted him a “humanitarian stay permit” under the Refugee Act, allowing him to remain in the country until conditions in Syria stabilized. Under this status, the man was able to run an auto parts sales company and live in South Korea with his family.
However, the man was later indicted on charges of employing undocumented immigrants and, in 2023, was sentenced to one year in prison. Following the ruling, the South Korean government issued a deportation order to expel him to a third country.
The man filed a lawsuit seeking to cancel the deportation order, but the courts rejected his claim. On Jan. 8, the Supreme Court finalized the lower court’s ruling by dismissing the case without a full hearing.
In the petition submitted to the Constitutional Court early Thursday morning, the man’s legal team argued that “the Supreme Court’s decision violated constitutional rights to life and physical liberty.”
![A constitutional complaint petition form is displayed at the civil affairs office of the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on March 12, the same day a new law allowing such petitions took effect. [YONHAP]](https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/data/photo/2026/03/12/83bcb03e-6c59-4076-a129-2cfb94c291df.jpg)
A constitutional complaint petition form is displayed at the civil affairs office of the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on March 12, the same day a new law allowing such petitions took effect. [YONHAP]
They also claimed the ruling infringed on constitutional rights to human dignity and the pursuit of happiness, protection of marriage and family life and freedom of residence and movement. The respondent in the case is the Supreme Court.
However, the man’s petition was filed 63 days after the ruling became final, exceeding the legal filing deadline of within 30 days from the date of the judgment.
In response, the man’s side also asked the Constitutional Court to rule that the provision of the Constitutional Court Act limiting the filing period to 30 days is unconstitutional.
“The 30-day period is excessively short for determining the contents of a judgment and deciding whether to pursue constitutional relief,” the petition states. “For petitioners with social disadvantages, such as foreigners, the limitation is even more restrictive.”
Lee Il, a public interest attorney representing the case, said immigration authorities issued the deportation order without considering whether there was a “safe third country” for deportation.
“This is a case where we felt that the arguments were not properly considered, even after going all the way to the Supreme Court,” Lee said. “If the petition is dismissed due to the 30-day filing limit, we plan to file a separate constitutional complaint.”
![Fishermen who returned to South Korea after being abducted to North Korea on the East Coast hold a press conference in front of the Sokcho branch of the Chuncheon District Court in Sokcho, Gangwon, on July 10, 2025, calling on the government to swiftly provide compensation. [YONHAP]](https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/data/photo/2026/03/12/26e4d6ea-d0fb-4a86-92f7-acdb6d926bc1.jpg)
Fishermen who returned to South Korea after being abducted to North Korea on the East Coast hold a press conference in front of the Sokcho branch of the Chuncheon District Court in Sokcho, Gangwon, on July 10, 2025, calling on the government to swiftly provide compensation. [YONHAP]
The second petition filed under the new system involves a state compensation lawsuit filed by the family of a fisherman who returned to South Korea after being abducted to North Korea.
It was submitted online at 12:16 a.m. Thursday. The respondent is the Seoul Central District Court.
Kim Dal-su, the late fisherman who had been abducted to North Korea and later returned to the South, was found not guilty of espionage in a retrial in January 2023. Kim had been given a prison sentence after being falsely accused of being a spy.
Following the ruling, his family filed for criminal compensation with the court. By law, courts must decide whether to grant compensation within six months of a request. However, the court issued its decision one year and three months later.
The family then filed a state compensation lawsuit seeking interest payments for the nine-month delay.
Both the first and second lower courts ruled against the family, stating that the six-month requirement is merely a recommendatory provision rather than a binding one. The ruling became final on Feb. 20 after the family decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Following the implementation of the new law, the family filed a constitutional complaint asking the Constitutional Court to determine whether the court ruling that dismissed their claim violates the Constitution.
According to the Constitutional Court, four petitions had been filed under the new system as of 9 a.m. Thursday.
This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.
BY CHOI SEO-IN [[email protected]]
with the Korea JoongAng Daily
To write comments, please log in to one of the accounts.
Standards Board Policy (0/250자)