The Constitutional Court has designated its second and third "judicial review cases" to determine whether to cancel finalized court rulings. The decision came exactly two months after the revised Constitutional Court Act, which includes provisions for judicial review, was promulgated and took effect on March 12 this year.
The Constitutional Court announced on Wednesday that, following deliberations by its designated panel, it referred two cases to the full bench: a ruling cancellation case filed by law firm Lee & Ko on behalf of a housing redevelopment association (referred to as Association A), and a case related to search and seizure conducted by the special prosecutor investigating the death of Sergeant Lee Ye-ram.
With these additions, three cases in total have been referred to the full bench out of 651 petitions received since the judicial review system took effect on March 12 through the previous day. As of Wednesday, the designated panel has dismissed 523 cases.
The second case was filed by Association A, a housing redevelopment association in Seoul, challenging the court's interpretation regarding the scope of free transfer of redevelopment infrastructure during the redevelopment process. Association A has argued that the land it purchased from the Seoul Metropolitan Government and other entities qualifies as redevelopment infrastructure subject to free transfer, because it is a de facto road being used as such. On this basis, the association filed a lawsuit claiming that the paid sales contract was invalid.
The case was lost in the first instance but reversed on appeal. However, the Supreme Court overturned the ruling again in October 2025, remanding the case. The remand trial also dismissed the claim in February 2026, with the decision finalized in March. Association A filed a judicial review petition against the Seoul High Court and the Supreme Court on the 3rd of last month, arguing that "the courts unconstitutionally interpreted the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, infringing on the right to equality and property rights."
The petitioner in the third case, an attorney surnamed Kim, filed a quasi-appeal in 2022, claiming that it was unjust for the special prosecutor investigating Sergeant Lee Ye-ram's death not to provide him with a copy of the warrant when searching his residence and other locations. However, the first and second instance courts ruled that Kim, as a witness rather than a suspect, had no right to receive a copy of the warrant, and the Supreme Court also dismissed his reappeal.
Kim filed a constitutional petition seeking cancellation of the ruling on the 16th of last month, arguing that Articles 118 and 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act should be interpreted to require warrant copies to be provided not only to suspects but to all persons subject to search and seizure during the investigation stage. He contended that the Supreme Court's view — that there is no obligation to provide a copy because a witness is not a suspect — is unconstitutional.
Regarding these cases, the Constitutional Court has notified the respondents, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Chief Judge of the Seoul High Court, of the referral to the full bench and requested written responses. The court has also informed interested parties — including the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the Prosecutor General, the Mayor of Seoul, and the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Office — of the referral and requested their opinions, officially launching the deliberation process.
Meanwhile, the first judicial review case referred to the full bench involves alleged bid-rigging in vaccine procurement by GC Biopharma (006280). As a joint seller in Korea's vaccine supply market, GC Biopharma received a corrective order and a fine from the Fair Trade Commission for allegedly rigging three HPV4 (Gardasil) vaccine procurement bids issued by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency between April 2017 and January 2019, by using wholesalers as stalking horses to secure first-ranked winning bids. GC Biopharma filed an administrative lawsuit against the decision, but the Seoul High Court rejected the claim, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in February this year without further review. GC Biopharma then filed a constitutional petition against the Supreme Court seeking cancellation of the ruling. Law firm Yulchon represents GC Biopharma. "Yulchon will do its best to ensure that clear legal principles regarding the constitutional right to trial are established through the Constitutional Court's upcoming substantive review," said Suh Hyung-seok, an attorney at Yulchon.
