The recently proposed law that would allow individuals to file a constitutional complaint at the Constitutional Court in South Korea when their basic rights are found to be violated by court rulings has ignited a passionate debate between the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. The Supreme Court expresses concerns that this additional level of judicial review disrupts the existing three-tier court system and delays the finalization of rulings, subsequently increasing the financial burden on citizens involved in legal disputes. Furthermore, worries have surfaced regarding the potential misuse of this procedure by wealthier parties as a strategy for delaying trials, thus exacerbating costs for those less able to bear them.

Conversely, the Constitutional Court argues that there must be a mechanism to remedy situations where fundamental rights are infringed due to erroneous judicial guidance, emphasizing that this falls under its constitutional review responsibilities. The Constitutional Court maintains that the introduction of this complaint process would ensure that the nature and efficacy of fundamental rights are upheld in court decisions, thereby promoting uniformity in constitutional interpretations. They assert that an awareness of potential final scrutiny by the Constitutional Court would lead judges to interpret laws with a more rigorous focus on constitutional principles and protections for fundamental rights.

However, both sides share mutual concerns regarding the expected surge of so-called 'frivolous' cases that may arise from the addition of this post-finalization litigation process. Many legal experts express that although there is a recognized necessity for such a process due to actual shortcomings in current court rulings, an unchecked increase in cases could overwhelm the existing Constitutional Court functions. Scholars suggest that limitations, such as restricting the applicability of constitutional complaints to administrative suits, may be required to alleviate this burden. Furthermore, legal advocacy groups have called for comprehensive plans to enhance the resources available to the Constitutional Court to manage the anticipated influx of cases effectively, warning that without sufficient support, even current cases could face delays in resolution.