헌법재판에서의 가처분에 대한 비교법적 연구 ― 한국과 미국을 중심으로 ―

A provisional remedy that intends to preserve the status quo until the court issues a final judgment would play a critical role in the constitutional adjudication. Despite the Constitutional Court Act of Korea does not concretely provide the provision of provisional remedies in the general constitutional procedure, the Constitutional Court of Korea has granted a provisional remedy where the unconstitutionality of a statute was disputed. Nevertheless, the number of cases granting a provisional remedy in disputing the unconstitutionality of a statute, 3 cases during 24 years, demonstrates that the Constitutional Court of Korea has been strict in determining the requirements of a provisional remedy. In the U.S., a preliminary injunction, which is a representative provisional remedy under the federal laws, has been a significant tactic in constitutional cases despite of its nature as an extraordinary remedy. A case that raises constitutional issues against a legal government action, including statutes, would demand the cautious application to grant a provisional remedy. Nevertheless, the properly granted provisional remedy would contribute to the protection of the basic rights and ensure the effectiveness of final judgments.