2. On January 31, 2008, the Defendant confirmed that a failure to pass a competitive examination for appointment of a candidate for appointment of a public secondary school teacher in 2008 against the Plaintiff is null and void.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

A. On October 31, 2007, the Defendant publicly announced the implementation plan for the selection of candidates for appointment such as public secondary school teachers in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant examination”).

(1) Selection subjects and the number of recruited persons: In the case of art subjects, nine persons (eight persons in general and one disabled person).

(2) The schedule for each test: (1) The first test: December 2, 2007; (2) the second test: January 17, 2008; (3) and 208.

1. (Practical Test) On January 19, 2008; on January 7, 2008, at the time of the second test planning and place;

(3) Allocation: ① 100 points in the primary examination (20 points in education, 80 points in major), ② 100 points in the secondary examination (20 points in essay, 30 points in interview, and practical examination).

50 Points

(4) Principles for determining successful examinees: score of at least 40 per subject of the essay examination, interview and practical examination; score of at least 40 per subject of the examination.

and with the order of multiple scores in the aggregate of the results, additional points, university records, and the results of the second examination;

The matters shall be determined.

(5) General principles of examination

- The disadvantages incurred due to the failure to implement the published matters are the causes attributable to the applicant, and the results therefrom are dealt with.

I shall comply with the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education's decision.

- If a person has been subjected to a disposition by an unlawful act, the examination of the person shall be null and void and shall be subject to Article 11bis.4

Pursuant to this, the application shall be restricted for a period of two years from the date of the disposition.

(6) Cancellation of final passing: A person who has been determined as a final successful candidate, but falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the final passing shall be revoked:

I. (b) Cheating, the remainder omitted.

(7) Guidelines for dealing with Cheating: A person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs shall be treated as a Cheating, and the period of his/her care shall be individually determined as a Cheating:

v. (A) Tests, such as a fixed amount, an electronic calculator, an electronic pocket book, a mobile phone, radio caller, earphone, and tape recorder within the test site.

use of unnecessary goods, not more than subsection (b)

B. On January 7, 2008, the Defendant publicly announced the implementation plan, place, and significance of the second examination after the appointment of public middle school teachers in Seoul Special Metropolitan City as follows.

(1) The date and subjects of the examination: ① on January 17, 2008, the essay and interview, ② on January 19, 2008

(2) The practical examination area and points assigned: ① The name of the subject, the human tomb, the number of points assigned to 25, the required time of 0 to 12: 30; 2. The number of practical examination areas and points assigned to 1:

Ⅱ: Various expressions containing the subject of the subject, allocated points 25, required hours 13: 30 to 17:00

(3) Preliminary candidates (elective from among exemplary items): (1) Basic tools: pentains, strings, tshesheshes, tshes, 2 elective instruments: number of elective instruments;

Free choice is made from among the water sense, Acrylic sense, eating, carcas, color pen, bean, and branch soil (at the time of appointment of the year 2007).

In the examination, one of the 's options' was designated as one of the 's options', but was excluded from the gold examination.

C. After passing the first examination on December 2, 2007, the Plaintiff applied for the second examination conducted on January 17, 2008 and January 19, 2008, and did not reach the upper grade 9 (including one person classified as disabled persons) with the same grade as the following, and the Defendant issued a non-compliance disposition against the Plaintiff on January 31, 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

A person shall be appointed.

D. Meanwhile, the appraisal of the practical II test was conducted by dividing the following into four parts: ① the expression of theme and 10 points on theme, ② the expression effect of the material’s unique character, ③ the harmony between forms and colors, ④ four points on the screen composition and completion, ④ the fact that seven of the 18 successful applicants in the first examination was not designated and publicly notified as selective instruments, and later the fact that the completion of the work was later revealed, the Defendant selected the final successful applicants by not treating them as unlawful acts, and not treating them as three points.

E. In the practical examination in the second examination in the practical examination, the applicant who has used the telecom has seven points, who has failed to pass the examination, or who has treated all the examination points I in the practical examination in the first 8 et al., the Plaintiff is obliged to pass the examination.

【Grounds for Recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the primary action in this case is legitimate

A. The defendant's main defense

1) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition against the Defendant was unlawful by deviating from the bounds of discretionary power or by taking advantage of its exercise, and sought the revocation of the instant disposition as its main action.

2) As to this, the Defendant did not file a lawsuit in the instant case within 90 days from the date on which the Plaintiff became aware of the instant disposition, and thus, the Defendant’s primary lawsuit in the instant case is unlawful and its main claim is changed to the instant safety claim.

B. Determination

1) The starting date of the filing period under Article 20(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act refers to the date on which “the person becomes aware of the disposition,” which is the starting date of the filing period of the lawsuit under Article 20(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and it does not refer to the date on which the person actually becomes aware of the relevant disposition,

2) Since the Defendant rendered the instant disposition against the Plaintiff on January 31, 2008, the Defendant became aware of the disposition of this case around that time, and even if the Plaintiff asserted, the Defendant reported the decision of revocation of the non-compliance disposition filed by the same applicant around November 14, 2008 that five applicants, among the applicants who used the cartels at the time of the instant case, passed the examination at the time of the instant case after reducing the three points only, and became aware of the successful decision. Even if it is apparent that the instant lawsuit was filed around 90 days from the date on which the Plaintiff became aware of the instant disposition, the instant main lawsuit of this case is unlawful as being filed after the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit.

3) Accordingly, the defendant's main defense is justified.

3. Determination on the conjunctive claim of this case

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Defendant, in violation of the guidelines for processing the use of materials for the instant practical test I, failed to pass the examination against the applicants who used the telecom, other than selective tools, thereby failing to pass the examination. Accordingly, the instant disposition goes beyond the bounds of its discretion, and its defect is significant and apparent.

shall be null and void.

B. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances, in particular, considering the social position of the instant test for selecting teachers and the public interest needs to prevent unfair conduct, it constitutes an obvious misconduct that the Defendant responded to the test using the instant practical first-II test which was not designated and publicly announced as selective tools. The Defendant is obliged to dispose of seven persons using the instant practical engineer (including one person with lower grade than the Plaintiff) among 18 persons who applied for the instant practical engineer second test in accordance with the guidelines for the treatment of the unlawful act he/she publicly notified, or to treat the relevant practical engineer second test null and void. In that sense, the instant disposition that the Defendant did not dispose of the said seven persons, but passed the above five of them, and caused the failure of the Plaintiff to pass the examination, and thus, it is obvious that the defect was objectively null and void since the Defendant violated the guidelines for the treatment of the practical engineer second examination, and its defect publicly notified in advance prior to the examination of the instant case.

① On January 7, 2008, prior to the date of the instant practical examination on January 19, 2008, the Defendant announced the details of the capture and caution on the examination date, etc., the Defendant limited the scope of old choice by allowing the selection from among the “water collection reduction, Acrylic reduction, food, spacker, color writing, spacker, spacker, and branches of the instant practical examination. In particular, the Defendant excluded from the appointment examination of the previous year, the “spactel,” which was permitted as selective instrument, from being selected.

② Nevertheless, five applicants, who passed the appointment examination of the art subject of this case, prepared in advance, and completed the examination work in practical time, disregarding the Defendant’s prior notice of the examination.

③ The examination is a system based on the fairness of the examination, and all applicants should compete under the same conditions. The use of other tools that certain applicants are not allowed as selective instruments in this case, as in this case, is an act of seriously distorted the principle of competition and impairing the fairness of the examination.

④ In the practical skill examination like art, there are parts with each elective instrument, and (in particular, in the case of sectel, it has the effects of non-hulling fluents, such as fingers and booms, compared to other materials, or in combination with other colors, it is easy to have the effects of mixing, and there is an easy and easy advantages to modify it, and there are differences in the ability depending on the implements used, such as the completion of a superior work by using a specific instrument or material compared to other applicants for each individual. Thus, the selection of tools whose examination subject is restricted should be observed, but the fairness of the examination can be ensured under the same competition.

⑤ The Defendant tried to treat the applicants using the telecom without deeming them to have failed to pass the examination of the applicants using the telecom, disregarding the restriction on the aforementioned selective instruments, but rather, intending to reduce three points. In order for such Defendant’s act to be lawful and reasonable within the scope of discretion, the method of arbitrary disposal should not be changed in the same and similar cases, and the objectivity thereof should be objectivity.

The Defendant publicly announced that “in the case of a practical skill II examination for art subjects, it shall be selected freely from among the strings of water collection, Acrylic reduction, food, posters, color pen, beanme, and branch, but works using other materials than the selective material shall be excluded from grading.” (Evidence A 10) in 2009, the Defendant publicly announced that “in the case of a practical skill II examination for art subject, it shall be permissible to select the candidate for appointment as a public middle school teacher in Seoul Special Metropolitan City.” (No. 10 evidence)

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the main claim of this case is dismissed, and the conjunctive claim of this case is accepted for the reason of the reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges ○○○

Judges OOO