The Constitutional Court on the 23rd held a public hearing in the case brought by GC Biopharma (006280) over an antitrust fine for bid-rigging in vaccine purchases — the first petition against a court ruling to clear the court's preliminary screening. GC Biopharma and the Fair Trade Commission, an interested party, clashed over whether the Supreme Court's dismissal of the appeal without a full review violated the company's right to a trial.
The court opened arguments at its main courtroom at 3 p.m. in the case, in which GC Biopharma sought to overturn a ruling by the Supreme Court.
GC Biopharma filed an administrative lawsuit contesting the Fair Trade Commission's bid-rigging fine, then petitioned the Constitutional Court after the Supreme Court dismissed its appeal without a full review. Under that procedure, the Supreme Court may dismiss an appeal without examining the merits if it finds no legal error in the lower court's judgment.
GC Biopharma argued that its right to a trial was violated because the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without holding a review, even though the company had been acquitted in a related criminal case. The criminal and administrative rulings contradicted each other, the company said, yet the dismissal without review left it unable to learn why opposite conclusions had been reached. Yulchon, the law firm representing GC Biopharma, said: "When contradictory findings of fact are each finalized in the same matter, that in itself means one of them involves a misapprehension of fact and a wrong application of the law."
Kim Jin-han, an attorney at Klas Hankyul who appeared as a witness recommended by GC Biopharma, said: "It is also impossible to determine whether the requirements for dismissal without review set by lawmakers were correctly interpreted and applied." He called it "a system that requires some degree of constitutional limits and oversight." His point was that the Supreme Court must give at least minimal reasons so that compliance with those requirements and the protection of a party's procedural rights can be verified.
The Government Legal Service, representing the Fair Trade Commission, countered that "the essence of this case is not that the criminal and administrative rulings reached different conclusions, but whether that difference amounts to a constitutional or statutory defect warranting reversal of the lower court's judgment." Allowing a ruling to be overturned solely because the conclusions differ, the commission said, would turn the Constitutional Court into another appellate court and break down the tiered court system and legal stability, effectively creating a fourth tier of review.
The justices also pressed both sides on the constitutional limits of dismissal without review and on the Supreme Court's duty to explain its reasoning.
Justice Kim Hyung-doo asked whether dismissing the appeal without review in the administrative case, following a finalized acquittal in the criminal case, could be considered a sufficient explanation. Justice Jeong Jeong-mi asked, "How is a party who has received contradictory judgments in an administrative case and a criminal case supposed to understand a dismissal without review?"
The commission said that "criminal and administrative trials differ in the burden of proof and the standard of proof," adding that "unless a case qualifies for substantive review, no duty arises for the Supreme Court to provide separate reasons at the appellate stage."
Justice Oh Young-jun said, "I question whether the Constitutional Court is barred from intervening even when the Supreme Court is not faithfully fulfilling its purpose as the highest court."
The Constitutional Court will decide, based on the arguments, whether the Supreme Court's dismissal without review violated the right to a trial. A ruling date will be set later. On the 21st, the court held a public hearing in a separate petition against the Supreme Court, filed by attorney Kim Young-soo of the law firm Haengbok, who said he had not been given a copy of a search and seizure warrant during the investigation into the death of the late Air Force Staff Sgt. Lee Ye-ram.
GC Biopharma had been indicted over allegations that it rigged three vaccine procurement tenders for Gardasil, a quadrivalent HPV vaccine, ordered by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency between April 2017 and January 2019. The Supreme Court finalized its acquittal last December, finding that the structure of the tenders made genuine competition difficult and that no restraint of competition could be established.
In the administrative lawsuit seeking to cancel the fine the Fair Trade Commission imposed over the same allegations, the Supreme Court in February this year dismissed the appeal without review, finalizing the lower court's ruling against GC Biopharma.