Sang-Hyeon Jeon, The Supreme Court’s Jurisdictional Overreach in the Same-Sex Partner Health Insurance Case, The Justice, Vol.209(2025. 8), pp.pp.97~132.
<Abstract>
The Supreme Court held that same-sex partners must also be recognized as dependents under the National Health Insurance system. However, the ruling raises several concerns from the perspective of constitutional law. While reviewing the legality of an administrative disposition, the Supreme Court found the disposition unlawful on the grounds that the statutory provisions on which it was based were unconstitutional. In this way, the Court disregarded the binding force of statutory law without referring the question of constitutionality to the Constitutional Court. This effectively amounted to amending the statute through judicial interpretation, without any legislative action by the National Assembly. As a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, administrative agencies are now burdened with the responsibility of examining the constitutionality of the statutory provisions underlying their administrative decisions. Although the Supreme Court justified its approach by invoking the supremacy of the Constitution and the judiciary’s authority to review administrative actions, it overlooked the binding force of statutory law and disregarded the constitutional allocation of the power of constitutional review over statutes, which is vested in the Constitutional Court. In assessing the legality of the disposition under the constitutional principle of equality, the Supreme Court misapplied fundamental doctrines of equality jurisprudence, such as the principle of administrative self-binding and the standard of review under the principle of equality. Ordinary courts cannot, and should not, attempt to resolve all social or legal issues by their own rulings. Questions of unconstitutionality in statutory law must be addressed through constitutional review by the Constitutional Court, and matters requiring statutory amendment must be left to the National Assembly. When ordinary courts attempt to settle all such matters solely through their own judgments, they do not realize the Constitution, but rather violate it.
<Keywords>
National health insurance, Same-sex marriage, Same-sex partner, Review of constitutionality of statute, Judge-made law, Administrative discretion, Equal protection, Administrative self-binding.
Sang-Hyeon Jeon, The Supreme Court’s Jurisdictional Overreach in the Same-Sex Partner Health Insurance Case, The Justice, Vol.209(2025. 8), pp.pp.97~132.
<Abstract>
The Supreme Court held that same-sex partners must also be recognized as dependents under the National Health Insurance system. However, the ruling raises several concerns from the perspective of constitutional law. While reviewing the legality of an administrative disposition, the Supreme Court found the disposition unlawful on the grounds that the statutory provisions on which it was based were unconstitutional. In this way, the Court disregarded the binding force of statutory law without referring the question of constitutionality to the Constitutional Court. This effectively amounted to amending the statute through judicial interpretation, without any legislative action by the National Assembly. As a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, administrative agencies are now burdened with the responsibility of examining the constitutionality of the statutory provisions underlying their administrative decisions. Although the Supreme Court justified its approach by invoking the supremacy of the Constitution and the judiciary’s authority to review administrative actions, it overlooked the binding force of statutory law and disregarded the constitutional allocation of the power of constitutional review over statutes, which is vested in the Constitutional Court. In assessing the legality of the disposition under the constitutional principle of equality, the Supreme Court misapplied fundamental doctrines of equality jurisprudence, such as the principle of administrative self-binding and the standard of review under the principle of equality. Ordinary courts cannot, and should not, attempt to resolve all social or legal issues by their own rulings. Questions of unconstitutionality in statutory law must be addressed through constitutional review by the Constitutional Court, and matters requiring statutory amendment must be left to the National Assembly. When ordinary courts attempt to settle all such matters solely through their own judgments, they do not realize the Constitution, but rather violate it.
<Keywords>
National health insurance, Same-sex marriage, Same-sex partner, Review of constitutionality of statute, Judge-made law, Administrative discretion, Equal protection, Administrative self-binding.