Constitutional Court [Yonhap News File Photo]

The "Case No. 1" for the Constitutional Court to decide whether to revoke a finalized court judgment has been designated. The case is the "Vaccine Bid-Rigging Fine" filed by Green Cross.

This comes about a month and a half after the amended Constitutional Court Act, which includes provisions for case appeals, was promulgated and enforced on March 12.

On March 28, the Constitutional Court decided to refer the case filed by pharmaceutical company Green Cross against the Supreme Court (2026헌마716) to a full panel, following deliberation by a panel of three justices.

This is the first case to be referred to a full panel among the 525 cases received since the implementation of the case appeal system on the 12th of last month, until the previous day.

Out of the total 266 cases referred for preliminary review by this day, 265 were dismissed.

Green Cross, as a joint seller in the domestic vaccine supply market, was ordered by the Fair Trade Commission to take corrective action and pay a fine for bid-rigging. This was because it was accused of colluding in three HPV4 (Gardasil) vaccine purchase bids, ordered by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency between April 2017 and January 2019, by having wholesalers act as nominal bidders and securing the first-place bid.

Green Cross appealed this decision, filing an administrative lawsuit, but the Seoul High Court dismissed the claim in October of last year.

Green Cross appealed again, but the Supreme Court dismissed its appeal without substantive review on February 12.

Dismissal without substantive review is a system that dismisses an appeal without full review, considering there are no legal errors in the appellate court's ruling in lawsuits other than criminal cases.

This conclusion was contrary to that in the criminal cases related to vaccine bid-rigging.

In December of last year, the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's acquittal in the case of violations of the Fair Trade Act and obstruction of bidding by pharmaceutical and distribution companies, including Green Cross.

The conclusion of the criminal trial was that there was no "substantial competitive relationship" due to the original bidding structure.

On the other hand, in the administrative lawsuit, the Seoul High Court deemed the fine imposition to be lawful. Green Cross argued that "the original judgment (Seoul High Court) misinterpreted the law regarding the judgment of competitive restriction, leading to an acquittal, and misunderstood the legal principles concerning the judgment of competitive restriction in joint actions," and appealed. However, the Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal without full review.

Consequently, on the 16th of last month, Green Cross filed a case appeal, claiming that "the case, which should not have been dismissed under the Special Act on Supreme Court Appeal Procedures, was dismissed, infringing upon the right to judicial recourse and property rights."

Constitutional Court Judgment Announcement [Yonhap News File Photo]

This case has garnered attention as it marks the first time the Constitutional Court will directly address the operation of the Supreme Court's dismissal without substantive review system, which has been a source of dissatisfaction for parties involved in litigation.

The dismissal without substantive review system was introduced in 1994 to streamline Supreme Court proceedings, but parties have expressed dissatisfaction due to the lack of specific reasons stated in the judgments.

Over 70% of civil, family, and administrative cases are finalized through dismissal without substantive review.

The Constitutional Court has notified the respondent, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, of the referral of this case to a full panel and requested a response.

It has also notified the Fair Trade Commission, the party to the case, and requested their opinion, and has notified the Minister of Justice of the referral.

However, it is expected that discussions will be needed on how the courts will transmit the relevant case records to the Constitutional Court.

While the Court Administration and the Constitutional Court have been in ongoing consultations since the implementation of the case appeal system, it is reported that they have not reached an agreement on specific methods due to differences of opinion on security issues.

Furthermore, it has not yet been determined how subsequent procedures will be handled if the Constitutional Court, after deliberation by a full panel, decides to revoke the judgment.