This is a constitutional claim against the South Korean Government for failing to provide constitutionally required protection of the fundamental rights of the plaintiffs from the threat of climate change by setting the national climate target at “more than 35% from 2018 levels” in the Art. 8 para. 1 of the Carbon Neutrality Act. 
The 123 plaintiffs are members of the civil society organization, leaders of political parties, and general citizens affected by climate change. The claimed rights include right to life, right to pursue happiness, right to general freedom, right to property, right to healthy environment, State’s obligation to provide its people from disasters, and State’s obligation to protect the fundamental rights of the people. 

The plaintiffs argue the 35% threshold set by the provision of the law (i) depletes South Korea’s per-capita-based carbon budget for 1.5 degrees and 1.7 degrees before 2030, (ii) falls short of the global reduction pathway presented in the IPCC 1.5 Special Report, and (iii) contributes to the Emission Gap pointed out by the UNEP. The plaintiffs further argue that the provision of the law does not prescribe the specific standards and criteria for delegation as required by the Constitution. 

On February 19, 2024, the Court merged the case with two other constitutional cases challenging the same NDC, and one case challenging the implementation plan of the NDC, the 1st Carbon Neutrality Basic Plan. The Court also set a public hearing for the case on April 23, 2024.

On August 29, 2024, in a unanimous decision, the Constitutional Court found that Article 8 Paragraph 1 of the Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth violates the right to healthy environment under Article 35 of the Constitution, and ordered the National Assembly to amend the law by February 28, 2026.

The Constitutional Court first acknowledged that the right to healthy environment under Art. 35 of the Constitution addresses the harm and risks related to climate change and that the State has an obligation to protect such rights by mitigating the cause of climate change and reducing the harm by adapting to climate change. The Court then ruled that in order to appropriately address such issue, the State's measures on climate change (i) must be based on South Korea's share of efforts in light of the global efforts based on scientific facts and international standards, (ii) should not impose excessive burden to the future, and (iii) must be based on legal framework that ensures continuous reduction of greenhouse gas.

In light of these standards, the Court ruled that Art. 8 Paragraph 1 of the Act has failed to meet these standards by not prescribing any targets or plans between the period 2031 - 2049, which inevitably results in postponing of reduction efforts. The Court also ruled that the provision violated the "principle of legislative reservation" stating that the the framework of the reduction pathway up to 2050 must be set by law, by the Legislature, considering its implications on various fundamental rights, and the fact that the future generation has limited opportunity to present its interest in the process.
On the 2030 reduction target set by the Enforcement Decree, the Court ruled that it is unable to identify a single standard or criteria to determine the appropriate share of South Korea in the global efforts and therefore cannot conclude that the target is in violation of the State's obligation. However, the Court also stated that it does not mean the State is doing its best on climate mitigation.

On the Carbon Neutrality Plan, the Court was divided. The majority, 5 justices, opined the Carbon Neutrality Plan is unconstitutional because the 40% reduction is based on "gross emission" of the base year 2018, and "net emission" of the target year 2030. Because the base year excludes carbon removal by LULUCF and the target year includes carbon removal by LULUCF, the majority opinion ruled that the actual reduction efforts of the plan does not meet the stated 40% and has violated the mandate of the Enforcement Decree. On the other hand, 4 justices dismissed the claim stating that because the language of the provision of the Act did not distinguish gross emission and net emission, such discrepancy would not amount to unconstitutionality. As the Constitutional Court Act requires super-majority (2/3) for decision of unconstitutionality, the claim on Carbon Neutrality Plan was dismissed.

Byung-In Kim et al. v. South Korea

application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document

<p>This entry was provided by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Please see the terms of use for citation and licensing of third party data.</p>

Byung-In Kim et al. v. South Korea - press release

Filed

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

An aim to achieve a quantifiable outcome within a given time-frame, set by an institution such as a national government.

Policy instruments are techniques or tools used by governing authorities to promote certain policies in order to achieve predetermined goals. Put simply, instruments are how a government tries to achieve its goals, with this taxonomy being focused on national policy instruments.

Risk is the potential for adverse consequences resulting from the dynamic interplay between (climate-related) hazards, exposure, and vulnerability of affected human or ecological systems.

Groups  of people who are adversely affected by climate change or the response to it

A set of principles, processes, and practices that build economic and political power to shift from an extractive economy to a regenerative economy.

Justice is the ethical and political framework that addresses fairness, including issues of responsibility, rights, and structural inequity.

Renewable energy means all forms of energy produced from renewable sources in a sustainable manner.

Fossil fuel is a generic term for non-renewable energy sources such as coal, fossil gas, and oil (including crude oil, and petroleum products), that can be used for electricity and heat generation. Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons formed from pressurised and heated organic material buried over millions of years.

Molecules in the atmosphere that play a key role in the greenhouse effect by trapping heat radiating from Earth’s surface.

Area of the economy in which actors engage in identical or related activities.

In human systems, the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate change and its effects, in order to moderate harm, increase resilience or exploit beneficial opportunities. In natural systems, the process of adjustment to actual climate change and its effects; human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected climate change and its effects.

The management and allocation of funds, assets and investments to meet various objectives

A target to reduce the prevalence of a greenhouse gas over a specific time frame

Hot temperature extremes are daily maximum temperatures  that were exceeded on average once in a decade or once in 50 years, and includes heatwaves.

A long-lived, colourless gas, chiefly emitted from fossil fuel combustion, deforestation and cement production.

Actions to reduce emissions in energy generation and supply.

Extreme weather refers to events where a weather variable exceeds (or falls below) a threshold. Meaning it is significantly different from the average or usual weather pattern.

A drought is an extended period of unusually dry weather marked by a significant and sustained lack of precipitation, falling below a specific threshold over a large area for more than a month

Terrestrial means "of the earth" and relates to the risks to ecological system that includes all living organisms and their interactions within land-based environments, such as forests, grasslands, and deserts.

Climate change impacts our society by disrupting the natural, economic and social systems we depend on. Physical hazards and underlying vulnerabilities can lead to increased resource competition for food and water, which can heighten the risk of conflict.

Byung-In Kim et al. v. South Korea - press release

Target

Risk

Impacted group

Greenhouse gas