2. B

3. C

2. D;

10. To the end of 27.27, 5% per annum and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The remaining claims against the Defendants by Plaintiff A, and all claims by Plaintiff B and C are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 40% of the portion arising between the Plaintiff A and the Defendants shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder 60% by the Defendants, respectively, and the portion arising between the Plaintiff B, C and the Defendants shall be borne by the Plaintiff B and C, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

With respect to money, 5% per annum from November 12, 2015 to the service date of the complaint of this case, and from the following day:

C. By the day of full payment, 15% interest per annum shall be paid.

According to evidence, the following facts are acknowledged.

In 2016, Plaintiff A applied for the College College Ability Test (hereinafter referred to as the "Performance Test of this case") in November 12, 2015, and completed an examination in the EW 8 Test Office (hereinafter referred to as the "Examination Office of this case").

In accordance with the Higher Education Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Defendant D is the first supervisor of the test site of this case.

On the other hand, the Korean Institute of Curriculum Evaluation and Planning delegated by the Minister of Education with the authority to execute the instant water aptitude test pursuant to the provisions on delegation and entrustment of administrative authority, prepared and announced the "Basic Plan for the College Ability Test (hereinafter referred to as the "Basic Plan for the Examination") in March 31, 2015" in 2016. According to the above plan, the types of goods prohibited from being carried into the test site and the items that can be carried out among the examinations are as follows.

The article prohibited from bringing in the ○ Examination Center-portable with all electronic devices, such as portable telephone, digital camera, MP3 flaser, electronic pre-camper, camera, radio, portable media display, visual display and visual display, identification card - identification card, examination card, private pen, modified tape, black tape, scambling, scambling, visual display, show the remaining time of each hour of the bell, year/month/day/day/day/day as a supervisor prior to the first test of this case, the Defendant D, who did not have any function other than the display of the test room, provided information on the items prohibited from bringing in the test, and provided information on the items prohibited from bringing in the test, with an explanation to the effect that it should not be seen as having any function other than the one-day display.

At the time of ○○, Plaintiff A had a digital-type visual clock (hereinafter referred to as “instant visual clock”), a digital-type visual clock with only visual display and the remaining time display functions for each hour, but was asked whether Defendant D should show the instant visual clock and submit the said visual clock in a yellow state as it constitutes an article prohibited from bringing in, and based on Defendant D’s explanation.

After that, the plaintiff A responded to the question of 'Isson function' from the defendant D and 'Isson function'. Accordingly, the plaintiff A heard the words "Isson to submit fora" from the defendant D and submitted the visibility to the second supervisor of the above test room, and eventually, the test was conducted without any visibility (at that time, the test site did not have a separate visibility where the testee can check time from time to time).

2. Determination

A. Determination as to Plaintiff A’s claim

In light of the above facts, Defendant D, as a supervisor of the examination of the water testing in this case, has a duty to inform examinees of the goods prohibited from carrying the test site in accordance with the basic plan for the examination in this case. However, Defendant D, as an inspector of the examination in this case, has a duty of care to provide clear information on the goods prohibited from carrying the test site in accordance with the examination of this case, and if he can carry the test with him any visual indication, the remaining hours of the test per hour, the year/day/day/day/day/day/day/day/day/day, regardless of the goods available for carrying the test, he shall not bring the test in which the remaining hours of the test is carried, and if he respond to Plaintiff A, who is asked about the possibility of carrying the test of this case, he could not have the plaintiff A's right to visibility by carrying any visual function, without clearly explaining that it is impossible to carry the test with him and without carrying any visual function other than the outer function.

In addition, the defendant Republic of Korea neglected to direct and supervise the examination supervisors to know the above basic plan for the examination to prevent any violation of the rights or legitimate interests of examinees in conducting the examination of this case, and to instruct them to provide accurate guidance on the prohibited items to be carried in and the prohibited items to be carried in, thereby infringing upon the plaintiff A's rights or legitimate interests in the examination.

Therefore, the defendants jointly do not have any visual visibility that the plaintiff A could carry, due to the defendants' illegal act, and are responsible for compensating for mental damage caused by the negligence of the water testing of this case. Thus, the water testing of this case is conducted once a year, and it is difficult for the plaintiff A who did not have any visual visibility to perform the water testing of this case to perform the water testing of this case only once a year as originally expected.

However, it seems that the examination results from a considerable apprehension of pain. However, in consideration of various circumstances shown in the argument of this case, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money to be paid by the Defendants as KRW 5 million, in consideration of the fact that it would have been possible to carry the above notice if it had been properly explained that it would have been possible to carry the above notice in accordance with the visual indication and the remaining time display function of the examination of this case because the basic plan for the examination of this case prior to the examination of this case was issued with a notice on the same subject matter as the examination of this case and the plaintiff A already knew that it constitutes an article that can carry the sight of this case.

Therefore, the defendants are jointly obligated to pay 5 million won and delay damages to the plaintiff A.

B. Determination as to Plaintiff B and C’s claims

Although it is true that the rights or legitimate interests of the examinee in relation to the water aptitude test of Plaintiff A were infringed due to the above circumstances, it is difficult to view that the legal interest of Plaintiff B and C, the parent of Plaintiff A, was infringed upon in money. Accordingly, Plaintiff B and C’s claim for consolation money of this case cannot be accepted.