단상斷想

The Constitutional Court issued a decision to remove President Yoon Suk-yeol from office in the impeachment trial on April 4, 2025. This decision acknowledged violations of the constitution and laws related to the martial law declared by former President Yoon Suk-yeol on December 3, 2024, and the issue of responsibility at the party level of the People Power Party is newly emerging. The Constitutional Court's impeachment decision judged it as an attempt to destroy the constitutional order in an organized and systematic manner, going beyond mere individual deviation, which provides the legal basis for the trial for the dissolution of the party.

In the 2014 dissolution case of the Unified Progressive Party, the Constitutional Court presented ‘substantial harm to the democratic basic order’ as a core requirement for the dissolution of a political party. In the case of the People Power Party, it can be seen that they posed a more direct and realistic risk than the Unified Progressive Party case, in that they attempted to seize the National Assembly by mobilizing the military while in actual power.

The Constitutional Court emphasized the seriousness of former President Yoon Seok-yeol's declaration of martial law, defining it as a 'reproduction of the history of past military coups.' In particular, the military's attempt to enter the National Assembly was judged to be a violation of both the military's political neutrality stipulated in Article 5 of the Constitution and the limits of the right of command under Article 74. The fact that this attempt to destroy the constitutional order was carried out at an organizational level, rather than as an individual deviation, is the starting point for discussions on the dissolution of the party. At the time of former President Yoon Seok-yeol's declaration of martial law, 15 out of 18 city and provincial party committees of the People Power Party were directly or indirectly involved, and they consistently maintained their opposition during the impeachment process. In particular, the refusal to vote on the impeachment bill, negative reactions to the court's issuance of warrants, and organized resistance to judicial decisions can be interpreted as a systematic defense of unconstitutional acts that goes beyond simple differences in political opinion.

In the 2014 dissolution case of the Unified Progressive Party, the Constitutional Court cited 'activities that sympathize with North Korea's efforts to communize South Korea' as grounds for dissolution. At the time, the dissolution was decided by an overwhelming majority opinion of 8 to 1 judges, and all five members of the National Assembly lost their seats. Comparing the case of the Unified Progressive Party with the situation of the People Power Party, several important differences and similarities are found. First, as a difference, while the Unified Progressive Party raised the issue of 'ideological risk sympathizing with the North Korean regime,' the People Power Party shows a more direct and realistic risk in that it is 'destruction of the constitutional order by mobilizing actual power.' The Unified Progressive Party, as an opposition party, had limited ability to exercise actual power, while the People Power Party was in a position to actually exercise state power as the ruling party. A similarity is that both cases meet the requirements for party dissolution under Article 8, Paragraph 4 of the Constitution, which is 'substantial harm to the democratic basic order.' In particular, common ground can be found in terms of organized and systematic anti-constitutional activities.

The possibility of dissolving the People Power Party can be raised on several legal grounds. First, in the case of Article 22 (Qualifications of Party Members) of the Political Parties Act, former President Yoon Seok-yeol, who was indicted on charges of leading insurrection, is generally considered a serious criminal suspect and it is customary to deprive him of his party membership. However, the People Power Party did not take such action and left the party for the presidential election, but the fact that he is exercising influence within the party is a problem. Violation of Article 24 (Party Constitution and Regulations) of the Political Parties Act may also be pointed out. The People Power Party adopted a resolution against impeachment at the party level and formalized its intention to reject judicial review, which can be interpreted as an act against the rule of law and the principle of separation of powers.

The most important basis is Article 47 (Requirements for Dissolution) of the Political Parties Act. The 'politicization of the military' attempt pointed out in the Constitutional Court's decision can serve as clear evidence of systemic unconstitutionality. In particular, the fact that the party organization was systematically involved in the martial law process is highly likely to be evaluated as an anti-constitutional activity at the party level, not an individual's deviation.

The Constitutional Court emphasized the principle of proportionality, stating that "the danger must be impossible to remove by other means" when deciding to dissolve a political party. This means that the dissolution of a political party should be a last resort (ultima ratio). In the case of the People Power Party, even after the impeachment of former President Yoon Seok-yeol, they are refusing to expel those involved in the insurrection, and are instead politicizing the issue with the frame of "political repression." This shows a lack of will for self-reform or purification, which may support the argument that there is no other alternative under the principle of proportionality. In addition, the party leadership has consistently expressed negative opinions about judicial decisions, which can be interpreted as a fundamental challenge to the rule of law. In this situation, the logic that it is difficult to remove the danger to the democratic basic order only through simple political checks or judgment through elections can be established.

Another important legal issue regarding the impeachment of former President Yoon Suk-yeol is the issue of recovering election expenses from the national treasury subsidy. According to Article 122 of the Public Official Election Act, if the president-elect is confirmed to have been invalidated due to violation of the Election Act, the party must return the full amount of the election subsidy. Currently, an investigation into allegations of insurrection against former President Yoon Suk-yeol is underway, and if illegal activities during the election process are additionally confirmed, it may be grounds for invalidating the election. In this case, the People Power Party is obligated to return approximately 39.7 billion won in election subsidies received in the 2022 presidential election to the national treasury. The obligation to return the subsidy arises simultaneously with the confirmation of the invalidation ruling, which can be a fatal blow to the party's finances. Furthermore, the state or political party may exercise its right to indemnity and claim damages from former President Yoon Suk-yeol personally. These economic sanctions can weaken the political foundation of the People Power Party separately from the dissolution of the party.

In a trial for the dissolution of a political party, the Constitutional Court requires the approval of at least six justices. In the case of the Unified Progressive Party, the dissolution was decided by an overwhelming majority of 8 to 1. In the case of the People Power Party, it could provide clearer grounds for dissolution than the Unified Progressive Party in that it attempted to destroy the constitutional order by mobilizing actual power. However, the dissolution of a political party is an extremely exceptional measure, and the Constitutional Court also defines it as a 'final means to defend democracy.' Therefore, apart from whether the legal requirements are met, it is expected that the political repercussions and the impact on the development of democracy will be comprehensively considered. In particular, the fact that the People Power Party represents considerable public opinion as the first opposition party, the impact of the dissolution of a political party on political pluralism, and the importance of political competition within the democratic system may affect the judgment.

If a political party dissolution trial against the People Power Party actually proceeds, the impact on Korean political history is expected to be very significant. First, in the short term, a reorganization of the conservative camp is inevitable. This is because measures such as the loss of parliamentary seats for affiliated lawmakers, suspension of political funding, and restrictions on election candidacy will follow upon the dissolution of the party. In the mid- to long-term, it could bring fundamental changes to Korea's political party culture. It is expected that strengthening the accountability of political parties, establishing intra-party democracy, and complying with the rule of law will become more important values. In addition, reflection on the ideological identity and constitutional values of political parties is also expected to deepen. Internationally, it can be evaluated as an example of showing the maturity of Korean democracy. It sets a precedent that even a party that has seized power will be held accountable if it violates constitutional values.

The push to dissolve the People Power Party has considerable legal basis. The Constitutional Court's decision to impeach former President Yoon Seok-yeol judged it as an attempt to destroy the constitutional order at an organizational level, beyond individual deviation, which poses a more direct and realistic risk than the dissolution of the Unified Progressive Party in 2014. Considering specific violations under the Political Party Act, whether the principle of proportionality is met, and the lack of willingness for self-reform, the legal requirements for party dissolution are largely met. However, since party dissolution is an extremely exceptional measure in a democratic system, the legal review should be carefully considered along with the political repercussions and long-term impact on the development of democracy. The issue of recovering election expenses from the national treasury subsidy is separate from the dissolution of the party and can be an important factor weakening the political base of the People Power Party, which is likely to accelerate changes in the landscape of Korean politics. Ultimately, this series of processes is expected to serve as an opportunity to further consolidate the rule of law foundation of Korean democracy.