This article aims to introduce and critically analyze the jurisprudence and its application in the UPP case in South Korea with reference to the ECtHR case law. In this controversial case, the CCK decided to dissolve the UPP and, without any basis in positive law, disqualify five National Assembly members affiliated with it. It is argued that when the CCK attempted to articulate the principle of proportionality that the ECtHR case law has firmly developed in this field and to apply it to this case, standards governing the dissolution of political parties were distorted at least in two ways. First, it substituted ‘social need’ for “pressing social need.” Second, it deliberately omitted the requirement of ‘sufficient imminence.’ In addition, the reasoning of the majority of eight justices based upon the rule of evidence in civil proceedings can also be criticized for being too abrupt to be justified in this highly controversial case of constitutional importance.

1. Introduction
 2. Idea and Ideology of Modern Constitutional Democracy
 3. The Jurisprudence of the CCK in the UPP Case
  A. The Facts
  B. The Juristic Grounds
  C. The Court’s Fndings
 4. The Criticism
  A. Distorted Principles
  B. Ignored Rule of Evidence and Wrong Application of Principles
  C. Judicial Activist Outreach Giving Way to Political Oppression
 5. Conclusion

• Jongcheol Kim(Professor at Yonsei University School of Law)