The Constitutional Court on the 12th began deliberations to decide whether to nullify two court rulings that have become final.
At a conference of a designated panel made up of three justices that day, the Constitutional Court referred to the full bench the retrial-cancellation cases filed by A dwellings reconstruction and maintenance association and a lawyer surnamed Kim.
The retrial-petition system took effect on Mar. 12. Of the 651 cases filed through the previous day, 523 had been dismissed as of that day. A total of three retrial petitions passed the preliminary review.
A reconstruction association entered into a land sale contract with the Seoul Metropolitan Government and Yeongdeungpo District in 2017 and paid the purchase price. It later filed a lawsuit for unjust enrichment against the Seoul Metropolitan Government and others, claiming the sale contract was void.
The association argued that Article 65, paragraph 1, sentence 2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, which states that a site among local government property that is provided for public traffic is vested without compensation in the public project operator, should be interpreted as also applying to paragraph 2 of the same article, which governs private project operators.
After remand from the Supreme Court, the Seoul High Court on Mar. 7 finalized a ruling against the association. The association argued that the court interpreted the law unconstitutionally. Lee & Ko represents the case.
Lawyer Kim filed a retrial petition seeking to overturn a Supreme Court decision related to the execution of a search warrant by special counsel team Ahn Mi-young investigating the death of Sgt. Lee Ye-ram.
Kim said that when special counsel Ahn conducted a search and seizure of Kim, who was a reference in July 2022, the team did not provide a copy of the warrant and did not meet the requirements for a search and seizure. The Supreme Court found that this decision was not unlawful,
Kim argued, "The Supreme Court's decision unconstitutionally interpreted and applied Articles 118 and 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding who is entitled to receive a copy of a search and seizure warrant, infringing the right to equality, the privacy and freedom of private life, and the right to a trial."