Constitutional Court to Hold First-Ever Trial on Judicial Review Petition Next Month: GC Pharma Collusion Case

The Constitutional Court has scheduled a hearing date for the GC Pharma vaccine bidding collusion surcharge case, which marks the very first "judicial review of court decisions" case.

This will be the first hearing held since the introduction of the Constitutional Court's judicial review system for court decisions in March.

The Constitutional Court announced that it will hold a hearing on October 7 at 3:00 PM in the grand courtroom for the trial cancellation case (2026Hun-Ma-716) filed by GC Pharma against the Supreme Court.

This case is the first to pass the preliminary review by a designated panel and be referred to the full bench for full deliberation since the judicial review system took effect on March 12.

GC Pharma received a corrective order and a 2 billion won surcharge from the Fair Trade Commission on the grounds that it used wholesalers as front companies in three vaccine purchase bids for HPV4 (Gardasil) ordered by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency between April 2017 and January 2019, securing the top spot and engaging in bid rigging.

GC Pharma filed an administrative lawsuit to appeal the decision, but the Seoul High Court dismissed the claim in October of last year. Although GC Pharma appealed again, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on February 12 of this year through a review-of-merits dismissal.

A review-of-merits dismissal is a system where the Supreme Court dismisses an appeal without full deliberation, concluding that there are no legal errors in the appellate court ruling, in lawsuits excluding criminal cases.

This conclusion stood in contrast to the criminal cases related to the vaccine bidding collusion.

In the criminal case involving charges of Fair Trade Act violations and obstruction of bidding by pharmaceutical and distribution companies including GC Pharma, the Supreme Court finalized the appellate ruling acquitting them in December of last year.

The conclusion of the criminal trial was that there was no "substantial competitive relationship" given the initial bidding structure.

Consequently, GC Pharma filed a judicial review petition on April 16, arguing that its right to trial was infringed because the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without full deliberation while judgments conflicted—with the criminal trial resulting in an acquittal and the administrative lawsuit's lower court resulting in a defeat.

The Constitutional Court referred the case to the full bench on the 28th of the same month and notified the respondent, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, of the referral the next day, requesting a written reply.

However, the Supreme Court did not submit a written reply by the deadline set by the Constitutional Court.

This was due to concerns that neutrality could be compromised if the court, which is supposed to act as an adjudicator, submits a reply intended to counter the claimant, who is one of the parties to the lawsuit.

(Photo: Yonhap News)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.