Recently, the Constitutional Court completely dismissed a constitutional appeal filed in connection with a shortage of ballot papers for local elections, and took a firm stance that it would not even hear a case claiming a violation of the people's basic rights if it did not meet the requirements for a legitimate claim. The Constitutional Court cited the main reason as the failure of the petitioner to prove ‘self-relevance’, which proves that he is an elector of the relevant constituency. This makes it clear that the Constitutional Court is not a window to resolve political complaints, but a thoroughly legal dispute resolution body. Similar cases currently filed are also undergoing rigorous verification from the pre-screening stage, and it is interpreted that the Constitutional Court itself is putting up a thorough defense against the possibility of abuse of the constitutional appeal system.

Large law firms are by far the most sensitive to changes in the constitutional trial environment. Sejong Law Firm recently significantly strengthened its constitutional litigation team by recruiting attorneys Dong-seung Shin and Hyeon-young Kim, who have been dedicated to constitutional research and adjudication at the Constitutional Court for decades. They are veterans who have handled complex cases where constitutional values ​​conflict, such as freedom rights, property rights, and social rights, while serving as a senior department researcher and senior constitutional researcher, respectively. The reason why law firms recruit such high-ranking researchers is because, after the implementation of the court system, advanced constitutional logic, which is different from existing administrative or civil litigation, has emerged as a key factor in determining victory or defeat.

Meanwhile, there are mixed concerns and expectations within the legal community regarding the expandability of the court system. In a recent academic paper, Judge Lee In-ho of the Seoul Central District Court warned that the court could effectively be transformed into a ‘fourth trial’ and neutralize the Supreme Court’s final ruling. Citing the German Federal Constitutional Court's "Heck Formula," he argued that the court's members should not simply dispute the validity of legal interpretations, but should intervene only when the court's judgment completely misunderstands the essence of fundamental rights or seriously undermines procedural justice. This critical opinion of a sitting judge is expected to serve as an important guideline in determining the extent to which the Constitutional Court will allow judicial intervention when hearing cases involving members of the court in the future.

Currently, the Constitutional Court has received hundreds of claims since the introduction of the court member system, and is taking a cautious approach by submitting only a small portion of them to the formal adjudication table. The majority of cases remain at the level of disputes over procedural defects or differences in legal interpretation, and the immediate task of the Constitutional Court has become how to select cases of violation of fundamental rights directly related to constitutional values. Despite this uncertainty, law firms predict that constitutional litigation will become the core of public law disputes, and are putting their best efforts into establishing a ‘one-stop legal service’ by deploying former trial researchers from the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court to the forefront. In the end, the court system is a new profit model and challenge for lawyers, and at the same time, it is a test bed for the public to confirm the last bastion of judicial justice.