Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Members of a dissolved unconstitutional party losing their National Assembly seats
Supreme Court, Apr. 29, 2021, 2016Du39856 (judgment)
Case name: 국회의원지위확인[위헌정당 해산결정으로 해산결정을 받은 정당 소속 국회의원이 해산결정에 따른 효과로 의원직을 상실하는지가 문제된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where the Constitutional Court has dissolved a political party as unconstitutional, do that party's National Assembly members lose their seats as an effect of the dissolution decision, and must a court decide the constitutional and statutory interpretation bearing on that effect?
Holding
Yes to both. Because the interpretation and application of the Constitution and statutes in a concrete case is an essential part of the judicial power, that authority belongs to the courts with the Supreme Court as the court of last resort, so the courts must decide the legal effects of an unconstitutional party dissolution. And even without an express provision in the Constitution or statutes, National Assembly members of the dissolved party lose their seats, since excluding them from the National Assembly is the logical consequence of keeping the party out of the process by which the people form their political will, and accords with the idea of defensive democracy.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
해산결정을 받은 정당이 국민의 정치적 의사형성 과정에 참여하는 것을 배제하기 위해서는, 그 이념과 정책을 실현하기 위한 활동을 직접적으로 행하는 지위에 있는 그 정당 소속 국회의원을 국민의 정치적 의사형성 과정이 이루어지는 국회에서 배제하여야 하는 것은 당연한 논리적 귀결임과 동시에 방어적 민주주의 이념에 부합하는 결론이다.
Unofficial English translation
In order to exclude a political party that has received a dissolution decision from participating in the process of the formation of the people's political will, it is a natural logical conclusion, and at the same time a conclusion consistent with the concept of defensive democracy, to exclude members of the National Assembly belonging to that political party, who are in a position to directly carry out activities to realize its ideology and policies, from the National Assembly, where the process of the formation of the people's political will takes place.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The plaintiffs shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
그와 같은 명문의 규정이 없더라도 위헌정당 해산결정에 따른 효과로 위헌정당 소속 국회의원은 국회의원직을 상실한다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Even in the absence of such an express provision, it must be regarded that, as an effect of a decision dissolving an unconstitutional political party, a member of the National Assembly belonging to an unconstitutional political party loses the office of National Assembly member.
Factors
- 정당해산심판제도는 기본적으로 모든 정당의 존립과 활동은 최대한 보장하되
- 정당은 국민의 정치적 의사를 형성하는 기능을 하고
- 정당 소속 국회의원은 정당이 민주적 기본질서와 직결된 국민의 정치적 의사형성에 참여하는 데 핵심적인 역할을 담당하고 있다
- 그 이념과 정책을 실현하기 위한 활동을 직접적으로 행하는 지위에 있는 그 정당 소속 국회의원을
- 헌법이나 법률로 명확히 규정하는 것이 보다 바람직하나
Unofficial English translation
• The political party dissolution adjudication system is fundamentally premised on guaranteeing the existence and activities of all political parties to the maximum extent, but
• political parties perform the function of forming the people's political will
• members of the National Assembly belonging to a political party play a key role in the political party's participation in the formation of the people's political will, which is directly connected to the fundamental democratic order
• members of the National Assembly belonging to that political party, who are in a position to directly carry out activities to realize its ideology and policies,
• it is more desirable to provide for it expressly in the Constitution or statutes, but
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2013. 3. 28. 선고 2012재두299 판결(공2013상, 779)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2012JaeDu299 decided March 28, 2013 (Gong 2013 Sang, 779)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2002. 11. 26. 선고 2002두1496 판결(공2003상, 241), 대법원 2010. 10. 14. 선고 2010다36407 판결(공2010하, 2083) / [2] 대법원 2013. 3. 28. 선고 2012재두299 판결(공2013상, 779)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Do public officials other than National Assembly members who were elected or appointed on the recommendation of a dissolved unconstitutional party also lose their status by the dissolution decision?
An express provision added to the Constitution or to a statute on the effects of an unconstitutional party dissolution would require this entry to be read again, since the Court held such a provision preferable. A later decision on the status of officials elected or appointed on the dissolved party's recommendation, or on a dissolution decision given after this one, would also call for a fresh reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 27 April 2016 (2015Nu68460), held that although the Constitution and statutes contain no express provision on the point, the plaintiffs lost their National Assembly seats as an effect of the Constitutional Court's decision of 19 December 2014 (2013HunDa1, full bench) dissolving the party. As to Plaintiff 5, it separately held that his action lacked an interest in confirmation, because after that decision he was independently sentenced to imprisonment or heavier punishment for insurrection incitement and the judgment became final, so he had already lost his seat.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. It restated the rule that a confirmation action, though directed at a past legal relationship, is permitted where that relationship still affects a present right or legal status and a declaration is an effective means of removing the resulting risk or unease, and so saw no misapplication of the law on the interest in confirmation. On the merits it held that the court below was right to find that the plaintiffs lost their seats by the effect of the dissolution decision, that this did not breach the principle of separation of powers, the rule of law or Article 37(2) of the Constitution, and that the judgment did not misstate the courts' power of adjudication.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which no Constitutional Court decision dissolving a party has been made, so that the effect on the member's seat is not in issue.
- A National Assembly member who lost the seat on an independent ground, such as a final sentence of imprisonment or heavier punishment, in which case there is no interest in confirming the seat.
- A public official other than a National Assembly member who was elected or appointed on the dissolved party's recommendation, since the Court said an express provision on the loss of such status is preferable and did not decide it.
Record verification notes
Confirm first that the person was a National Assembly member of the party covered by the Constitutional Court's dissolution decision, and then separate any ground of losing the seat that is independent of that decision, as the court below did for Plaintiff 5. Note also that the Court did not decide whether public officials other than National Assembly members who were elected or appointed on the dissolved party's recommendation also lose their status, and said only that an express provision in the Constitution or statutes would be preferable.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 과거의 법률관계에 관하여 확인의 소가 허용되는 경우 [2] 법원이 위헌정당 해산결정에 따른 법적 효과와 관련한 헌법과 법률의 해석·적용에 관한 사항을 판단해야 하는지 여부(적극) [3] 헌법재판소의 위헌정당 해산결정으로 해산된 정당 소속 국회의원이 국회의원직을 상실하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Cases in which an action for confirmation of a past legal relationship is permitted [2] Whether the court must determine matters concerning the interpretation and application of the Constitution and statutes related to the legal effects of a decision dissolving an unconstitutional political party (affirmative) [3] Whether a member of the National Assembly belonging to a political party dissolved by a decision of the Constitutional Court dissolving an unconstitutional political party loses the office of National Assembly member (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 원래 확인의 소는 현재의 권리 또는 법률상 지위에 관한 위험이나 불안을 제거하기 위하여 허용되는 것이고, 다만 과거의 법률관계라 할지라도 현재의 권리 또는 법률상 지위에 영향을 미치고 있고 현재의 권리 또는 법률상 지위에 대한 위험이나 불안을 제거하기 위하여 그 법률관계에 관한 확인판결을 받는 것이 유효적절한 수단이라고 인정될 때에는 확인의 이익이 있다. [2] 헌법재판소의 결정으로 정당이 해산되면 중앙선거관리위원회는 정당법에 따라 그 결정을 집행하여야 하고(헌법재판소법 제60조), 그 밖에도 기존에 존속·활동하였던 정당이 해산됨에 따른 여러 법적 효과가 발생한다. 구체적 사건에서의 헌법과 법률의 해석·적용은 사법권의 본질적 내용으로서 그 권한은 대법원을 최고법원으로 하는 법원에 있으므로, 법원은 위와 같은 위헌정당 해산결정에 따른 법적 효과와 관련한 헌법과 법률의 해석·적용에 관한 사항을 판단하여야 한다. [3] 정당해산심판제도는 기본적으로 모든 정당의 존립과 활동은 최대한 보장하되 민주적 기본질서를 수호하기 위하여 엄격한 요건과 절차를 충족하여 해산결정을 받은 위헌적인 정당을 국민의 정치적 의사형성 과정에서 미리 배제하는 것을 본질로 한다. 우리 헌법과 법률이 지향하고 제도적으로 보장하고 있는 정당민주주의하에서, 정당은 국민의 정치적 의사를 형성하는 기능을 하고, 특히 정당 소속 국회의원은 정당이 민주적 기본질서와 직결된 국민의 정치적 의사형성에 참여하는 데 핵심적인 역할을 담당하고 있다. 그렇다면 해산결정을 받은 정당이 국민의 정치적 의사형성 과정에 참여하는 것을 배제하기 위해서는, 그 이념과 정책을 실현하기 위한 활동을 직접적으로 행하는 지위에 있는 그 정당 소속 국회의원을 국민의 정치적 의사형성 과정이 이루어지는 국회에서 배제하여야 하는 것은 당연한 논리적 귀결임과 동시에 방어적 민주주의 이념에 부합하는 결론이다. 따라서 위헌정당 해산결정의 효과로 그 정당의 추천 등으로 당선되거나 임명된 공무원 등의 지위를 상실시킬지 여부는 헌법이나 법률로 명확히 규정하는 것이 보다 바람직하나, 그와 같은 명문의 규정이 없더라도 위헌정당 해산결정에 따른 효과로 위헌정당 소속 국회의원은 국회의원직을 상실한다고 보아야 한다.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The plaintiffs shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Provisions referred to
[1] 행정소송법 제35조 [2] 헌법 제8조 제4항, 제107조, 헌법재판소법 제55조, 제59조, 제60조 [3] 헌법 제8조 제4항, 헌법재판소법 제55조, 제59조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger