2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs are dentists who belong to the training institution or a medical institution, etc. designated by the Minister of Health and Welfare as a training dental hospital (hereinafter referred to as "training institution") and have completed the internship and field training course as a voluntary training medical specialist.

The Plaintiffs asserted that they are qualified to apply for the qualification examination for dentists under Article 18(1)1-2 of the Regulations on the Training, Recognition, etc. of Dental Specialists (hereinafter “Rules”) (a person recognized by the Minister of Health and Welfare as a dentist or a foreign medical institution or training institution recognized as a dentist by the Minister of Health and Welfare) (a person recognized as having received a completion certificate or equivalent or higher qualification and recognized as having received a training equivalent or higher than the training course under this Decree by the Minister of Health and Welfare), and filed an application with the Minister of Health and Welfare for the issuance of a letter of recognition of a dentist’s training course by a dentist’s medical specialist under Article 11(3)1(b) of the Enforcement Rule of the Regulations on the Qualification Screening, etc. of Dental Specialists (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule”), but the Minister of Health and Welfare rejected the issuance of such certificate to the effect that it does not constitute a person who is qualified to apply for the qualification examination for dentists

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings, although the plaintiffs asserted that they received training outside the prescribed number, they had undergone the same process as the class of a medical resident selected within the prescribed number of students, and the field of a research. Thus, pursuant to Article 18 (1) 1 of the Recognition of Qualifications Regulations, the plaintiffs should be deemed to fall under "a dentist who has completed training under this Decree", and even if not, they shall be considered to fall under "a dentist who has completed training under this Decree".