The article discusses the recent passage of a bill in South Korea's National Assembly to amend the Constitutional Court Act, enabling individuals to file constitutional complaints regarding court decisions. This legislation, referred to as 'litigation to the Constitutional Court', has been a topic of extensive academic and social debate, gaining significant traction in constitutional law discussions. However, proponents of the bill acknowledge the need to carefully consider any adverse effects that could arise from changes to the judiciary system and aim to mitigate such impacts during the implementation process.

The amended bill allows for constitutional complaints even against rulings confirmed through higher court appeals if those rulings conflict with constitutional principles or violate due process, thus removing the previous exclusion of court judgments from being subject to constitutional review. Historically, this exclusion was influenced by the Supreme Court's stance when the Constitutional Court was established in 1988, reflecting a historical struggle against a judiciary seen as complicit in military dictatorships.

Despite strong opposition from the Supreme Court, which fears the introduction of litigation to the Constitutional Court will lead to a convoluted legal process and jeopardize judicial authority, proponents argue that the scope of constitutional complaints will be limited to cases involving constitutional violations. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court itself has shown support for the legislation, suggesting that the existing provisions that disallow these complaints may be unconstitutional, which bolsters the argument for reforming the law.