Processing periods for petitions may now be extended only on listed grounds: what the May 2026 amendment to the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act changes

What changed

Article 21(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act used to let the head of an administrative agency extend a petition's processing period once, within the range of that period, where an unavoidable reason made handling within the period difficult, and extend it once more, again within that range, only with the petitioner's consent. Presidential Decree No. 36296 replaces 'unavoidable' with 'any of the following' and adds four grounds: a case needing co-operation from a related agency or department; a case needing a fact-finding or site check; a natural disaster or other force majeure; and a case with reasons comparable to those three. The first proviso and the one-further-extension rule are unchanged. The official reason gives the aim as preventing customary extensions of processing periods.

New Article 21(2) forbids the head of an administrative agency from extending the processing period on the grounds of 'simple workload, delayed designation of the petition-handling officer or the absence of that officer'. The rule formerly in Article 21(2), that the reason for the extension and the expected completion date must be given to the petitioner in writing without delay, is now Article 21(3). New Article 21(4) carries over the former paragraph 3, applying Article 23 mutatis mutandis, but as promulgated it reads that Article 23 applies to 'the notice of extension of the processing period under paragraph 2', while the notice obligation now stands in paragraph 3 and paragraph 2 is the new prohibition.

Article 6(5) now lets the head of an administrative agency correct, on the agency's own authority and with the petitioner's consent, a 'simple error, miswriting, omission or an obvious error comparable to these' in an application on receipt, and the former paragraphs 5 to 7 are renumbered 6 to 8. Other changes in the same decree: new Article 6-2 sets out notices, receipts and back-registration of petitions when the information system fails; item 2 of new Article 20 excludes from the processing period the time during which a petition already received through the information system cannot be handled because of a failure; Article 38(3) now lets the chair be designated by the head of the agency from director-general-level officials in overall charge of petition work or employees of equivalent rank, or elected by the committee from the commissioned members under Article 38(4)(4) and (5), the external legal experts and external experts related to petitions; Article 38(4) lists the members and requires gender to be considered when commissioning them; the reference in Article 38-2(2) is replaced by 'a director-general-level public official'; and new Article 38-3 permits subcommittees.

What to read in the text

Addendum Article 1 puts the Decree into force on the day of promulgation, 6 May 2026. Addendum Article 2 applies the amended Article 6(5) to petitions received after entry into force; Addendum Article 3 applies new Article 6-2 and item 2 of Article 20 where an information system failure occurs after entry into force; and Addendum Article 4 applies the amended Article 21(1) and (2) to petitions received after entry into force. The addendum says nothing about the Article 38, Article 38-2 or Article 38-3 changes, and says nothing about petitions already received before that day.

A file therefore needs the date on which the petition was received, and for an extension the ground relied on as one of the four listed in Article 21(1) and not one of the grounds barred by Article 21(2); for the information system rules, the date of the failure. Article 20 lists two periods as not counted into the processing period: periods applied mutatis mutandis from Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Administrative Procedure Act, which this note has not read, and the period during which a petition already received through the information system cannot be handled because of a failure.

Questions for the legislature

Article 21(2) states that the head of an administrative agency 'shall not extend the processing period' on grounds of 'simple workload, delayed designation of the petition-handling officer or the absence of that officer'. Neither the amendment text, the addendum nor the official reason says what follows when an extension has already been granted on one of those grounds. Is the extended deadline treated as never having taken effect, and what notice, if any, must the agency give the petitioner?

Article 6(5) permits correction 'with the petitioner's consent' and 'on the agency's own authority'. The text, the addendum and the official reason do not say how the correction affects the record of timing. Does a corrected application keep the date on which the original application was received, or is it treated as a petition received on the date the correction was made?

When to revisit

We revisit this note if a court decision explains the barred grounds in Article 21(2), the cross-reference in Article 21(4) or the effect of a correction under Article 6(5), if the Civil Petitions Treatment Act or Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Administrative Procedure Act is read against Article 20, or if a further amendment sets the composition and operation of subcommittees under Article 38-3(2).