In ‘Chapter II. Theroretical Examination into the Violations of Law Predominance’, this study didn`t cover any ‘comprehensive human rights ordinance’ that is not based on governing laws, but examined whether there is any violation of law predominance over ‘individual human rights ordinance’ established on the basis of superior laws. With regard to associations between law and ordinance, the question is possible extent to which ‘individual human rights ordinance’ may be de-termined for the matters preoccupied by superior laws. In order to judge this ques-tion, it would be necessary to examine Japanese ‘law predominance theory’ and its rival (critical) theory called ‘modified law predominance theory’. These theories are also introduced as model theories to judge potential violations of law predominance in South Korea. In addition, ‘Chapter III. Categorical Examination into the Violations of Law Predominance’ addresses two cases, i.e. ‘a case of no legal provi-sion available’ and ‘a case of legal provisions available.’ Here, it is advisable that the latter case should be examined in two further cases, i.e. ‘a case that law and ordinance have provisions for different goals’ and ‘a case that law and ordinance has provisions for same goals.’ And it is recommended that ‘the case that law and ordinance has provisions for same goals’ should be examined in two further cases, i.e. ‘extra ordinance’ (ordinance about additional subjects) and ‘excessive ordinance’ (ordinance about excess of content (criteria)).