This study seeks to lay the groundwork for discussions on the consistency of inter-Korean legal terminology by moving beyond approaches that reduce differences merely to discrepancies in spelling or vocabulary. Instead, it analyzes the institutional structure through which legal language in North Korea is formed and entrenched by the interaction between its normative system and orthographic norms. To this end, the study examines, with reference to the North Korean Constitution and the Law on Lawmaking, the dual structure of legal forms (Constitution–sectoral laws regulations–bylaws) and promulgation forms (laws, decrees, decisions, and directives), along with their corresponding hierarchy of legal validity. It further reviews the procedural and functional differentiation of the sectoral law system through discussions on “important sectoral laws” and “basic sectoral laws.” In addition, the study demonstrates that differences in inter-Korean orthographic norms, language policy, and language education are directly reflected in North Korean legal terminology, structurally reproducing outward heterogeneity through features such as the non-application of initial sound rules and the non-use of sai-siot. Moreover, while North Korea articulates principles of legal language expression and criteria for lexical selection, ideological and doctrinal expressions frequently appear even at the highest normative level, indicating that legal language functions not only as a medium of norm transmission but also as an instrument of regime legitimation and mobilization. Based on these findings, the study proposes three methodological premises: (1)prior analysis of normative structures before terminology comparison; (2) interpretive linkage of differences in spelling and vocabulary with language policy and language education; and (3) parallel evaluation of ideologized terminology from the perspective of unification-oriented legal harmonization. For future sector-specific comparative research, it recommends an integrated consideration of orthographic harmonization, correspondence of definitions and scopes of application, hierarchical alignment between principle-oriented and implementing provisions, and criteria for handling ideologically charged terms.