The rebate effect is not just employee deviation

Rebate provided to the hospital manager Finalized fine for a salesperson

Pharmaceutical companies are also suspended for 3 months

The company claims "no reason for disposal"

The pharmaceutical company, which was suspended from sales due to the confirmation of the salesperson's suspicion of providing rebates, argued that there was no reason for the disposition, saying that it was only an employee's deviance, but the court did not accept it.

 

The Suwon District Court recently dismissed a request for cancellation of a disposition to suspend sales of pharmaceuticals filed by a pharmaceutical company against the Gyeongin Food and Drug Administration.

 

The reason for the disposition of pharmaceutical company A is as follows.

 

Mr.

 

B, who was a salesperson at this company, provided a total of 41 million won worth of economic benefits to the hospital administration manager several times from October 2013 to January 2016.

 

As the charges were confirmed, Mr.

 

B received a summary order of a fine of 10 million won for violating the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act around February 2017.

 

The Gyeongin Food and Drug Administration issued a three-month suspension of drug sales to Pharmaceutical Company A in October 2021, four years after going through the prior notification procedure.

 

The reason for the disposition was in accordance with Mr.

 

B's summary order.

 

Regarding this disposition, Pharmaceutical Company A argued that there was no reason for the disposition and that the KFDA's disposition violated and abused its discretion.

 

First of all, the pharmaceutical company said the reason why there is no reason for disposition, "(Rebate) is only Mr.

 

B's personal deviation, and the company has never been involved." "There is a legitimate reason for not being a person who provided economic benefits, or for not being able to blame for the neglect of duty." “It was difficult for the company to know Mr.

 

B’s rebate act, and it was only after four years had elapsed since the summary order, in this case, was finalized,” he said.

 

Considering that the education was conducted and Mr.

 

B's act was an aberrant act, this disposition violates the principle of proportionality and responsibility, and is illegal as it deviates from and abuses discretion.” However, the court completely refuted the claim of pharmaceutical company A.

 

First of all, it was emphasized that Mr.

 

B's kickback behavior was not regarded as Mr.

 

B's individual act and that the company was also responsible for it.

 

The court said, “Mr.

 

B, who was an employee of a pharmaceutical company A, committed an act in this case in which he provided economic benefits to medical personnel, etc.

 

in the process of carrying out sales duties entrusted by the company.” is ultimately vested in the company.

 

The responsibility for the violation of administrative obligations that occurred in the process is also acknowledged as partly attributable to the company.” The pharmaceutical company said that it did not fulfill its obligations even if it provided education related to fair trade self-compliance to its employees.

 

While pointing out that the 3-month suspension of business was not excessive as the company claims, the court also effectively reviewed the precedent in which the company was previously suspended for 3 months due to illegal kickbacks.

 

The court said, "It is acknowledged that the company conducted regular CP (Compliance Program) training for its salespersons, but the contents of the training only seem to be of a general level." It is difficult to admit a legitimate reason that cannot be blamed for neglect of duty based on circumstances alone.” The court continued, “Although all of the 35 million won in cash that Mr.

 

B provided to the hospital administration manager does not appear to be a rebate to promote the drug sales of this pharmaceutical company, considering the purpose of the case that the standard, in this case, did not determine the degree of disposition in proportion to the amount of the rebate.

 

If so, it is difficult to conclude that the disposition, in this case, is unfair.” Company A’s claim is dismissed without reason.”