The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties 15% interest per annum on each of the money listed in the “amount of personal seal” column in attached Table 2 and each of the said money from November 27, 2013 to May 10, 2017, and 5% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The remaining appeals by the plaintiffs (Appointeds) and the designated parties and the designated parties Nos. 2 through 22 of the list of the plaintiffs (Appointeds) and the designated parties are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the total litigation cost, 2/3 of the total litigation cost is borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the remainder by the Defendants, respectively.

4. The part ordering the payment of money under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff (designated parties; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiffs”) and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiffs”), 5% per annum from November 27, 2013 to the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case as to each of the said money, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment (the designated parties Nos. 2 to 22 of the list of designated parties No. 1 and the designated parties indicated in the table No. 2 to 22 were changed to the claim of consolation money in exchange for the claim of consolation money).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. In addition to reducing the interest rate of 20% per annum to 15% per annum, the same shall apply to the entries in the purport of the claim.

A. The course of determining the grade and grade of the subject of the “ World Geographical Ability Test” in 2014

In November 7, 2014, which was implemented on November 7, 2013 under the supervision of the defendant Korean Institute of Education and Evaluation (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Institute"), 60,000 examinees applied for the College College Test (hereinafter referred to as the "AD Test"), and among them, 37,684 examinees, including the plaintiffs, were selected in the subjects of "The World Geographical Survey" at issue in this case among the selected subjects of "Social Search Organization".

After the completion of the water-related experiment, Defendant IPE issued a correct answer to the water-related experiment in the year 2014 by making the answer of the world '8' issue (hereinafter referred to as the "instant issue", and its contents are as shown in attached Form 3) as 'A' and 'C (hereinafter referred to as the "C/C fingerprints" among the instant issues), including 'A' and 'C/C(hereinafter referred to as the "C/C/C' of this case), and the Plaintiffs did not state the answer of the instant issue 2.

Although an objection was filed against the instant issue during the period of filing the instant objection immediately after the water performance test was conducted, under the premise that there was no error in the setting of the instant issue and the determination of a correct answer, the Defendant Evaluation Institute determined the grade and grade of each subject of the water performance test applicants, and notified the applicants, including the Plaintiffs, of the determination of the global rating classification of the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant disposition”). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24880, Nov. 27, 2013>

(b) Progress of relevant administrative litigation

After the examination results and grades of the applicants, 21 applicants, including 29, 49, 56, 57, 58, 89, etc., were raised against the Seoul Administrative Court against the defendant Evaluation Institute, on the ground that there was an error in the issue of this case, the defendant Evaluation Institute filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the determination of the response to the College College Ability Test (hereinafter referred to as the "related case").

On December 16, 2013, the Seoul Administrative Court (2013Guhap29681) dismissed the plaintiffs' claim on the ground that the fingerprints in this case was either boomed or unclear, but if the examinee was at an average level of examination, it was not sufficient to respond to the question.

On October 16, 2014, the Seoul High Court (2014Nu40724), which was the appellate court, appealed four applicants 49 and 89, and the Seoul High Court (2014Nu40724), rendered a judgment revoking the determination of the rating of the global geographical subject in the 2014 veterinary test, based on the premise that the Defendant Evaluation Institute is correct to have fingerprints 1 and fingerprint 3, and that the determination of the rating of the issue in the 2014 may deviate from or abuse the discretionary power in the 2014 veterinary test, on the premise that the fixed response of the issue in this case is ②, the determination of the rating of the global geographical subject was made in the 2014 veterinary test, and the judgment of the first instance court revoked the judgment and the determination of the rating of the 2014 World Diplomatic subject by the Defendant Evaluation Institute to the relevant plaintiffs. The judgment was final and conclusive on November 7, 2014, without any objection by the Defendant Evaluation Institute.

C. The circumstances after the appellate judgment of the relevant case

On October 31, 2014, the Minister of Education and the defendant Evaluation Institute announced the policy to accept the results of the relevant appellate judgment in the case, and to relieve the victimized students by re-assessment of global geographic records. Accordingly, on November 20, 2014, the defendant Evaluation Institute announced the results of global sexual property disposal.

The Minister of Education, in 2014, required the university or college to decide whether to pass the additional examination by reflecting the global rating of the re-determined property, and required the students who passed the additional examination to provide information on the fact from December 17, 2014. Accordingly, the measures for remedy, such as the entry in the “Remedial Measures” column in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant remedy measures”), were implemented against the Plaintiffs. Of them, the Plaintiff and the designated parties listed in the attached Tables 2 to 2 to 42 were allowed to pass the additional examination in the university or college entrance in the year 2014 due to the above remedy measures.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 23, 30, 34, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 16 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A. Defendant Evaluation Institute’s responsibility

The defendant Evaluation Institute neglected to perform its duty of care to prevent any infringement on the rights and legitimate interests of examinees, thereby causing errors in setting up the issue of this case and making a correct decision, and even though recognizing that it is the error of setting questions and making a correct decision, it did not recognize it for a period of not less than one year and committed an illegal act until the remedy measure of this case, so the defendant Evaluation Institute is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for mental damage caused thereby.

B. Defendant Republic of Korea’s responsibility

According to Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, in cases where a public official or a private person entrusted with public duties causes damage to another person by intention or negligence while performing his/her duties, the State is liable to compensate for such damage. Thus, the defendant Republic of Korea is liable to compensate for mental damage suffered by the plaintiffs due to the tort committed by the defendant Evaluation Institute entrusted by the Minister of Education with the affairs of preparing, grading, making a full answer, giving

In addition, according to the "Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority", which is the Presidential Decree, an entrusted institution entrusted to a private entrusted institution shall direct and supervise the private entrusted institution for the performance of affairs entrusted to the private entrusted to the private entrusted institution, and if deemed necessary, it may give necessary instructions or order measures concerning affairs entrusted to the private entrusted institution (Article 14(1)), and if it is deemed that the performance of affairs entrusted to the private entrusted institution is illegal or unjust (Article 14(3)). In this case, the Minister of Education shall properly direct and supervise the defendant Evaluation Institute so that he/she does not infringe upon the rights or legitimate interests of the examination in the course of entrusting the affairs entrusted to the private entrusted institution to the defendant Evaluation Institute, which is the private entrusted institution, while the Minister of Education has to properly direct and supervise the defendant Evaluation Institute so

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. As to whether the objective questions of the instant case were written and written

1) Facts of recognition

The fingerprint of this case is the content of questioning the overall output of the European Union and the North America Free Trade Agreement. The following facts can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of each of the following evidence, Gap's evidence, Gap's evidence Nos. 23, 29, 31, 32, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 20 through 22, 31, Eul's evidence Nos. 25, 41, Eul's evidence Nos. 18, 19, 29, 30, the witness of the first instance court and the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 2's testimony and the whole arguments.

A) The World Geographical Subjects, which had been used until the time of the instant veterinary test, contain the following contents:

In other words, the World Geographical Subjects published in the school affairs state that “if Korea, Japan, and China enters into a free trade agreement, it is anticipated that Korea, Japan, and China will be injured to the macrointegrated market in the world (Article 225).” The maps indicated together with the above contents state that “The total production amount of the European Union shall be reduced to USD 18,387 billion, and the total production amount of the parties to the North America Free Trade Agreement (hereinafter “the total production amount of the North America FTA”) shall be USD 16,467 billion. In addition, the World Geographical Textbooks published in the World Geographical Education shall be indicated as the official text of the European Union, which is the largest global single market in the world (Article 125 pages) without mentioning any specific year.”

B) On the other hand, according to the statistical data published by reliable international organizations, the total production amount of the North America FTA appears to be more than the European Union, as of the year 2012.

In other words, according to the statistical data of the World Bank (IBDR), in the case of 2012, the total production amount of the European Union is USD 17.35 billion, USD 19.88 billion, and the total production amount of the North America FTA from 2007 to 2012 is more than that of the European Union. According to the statistical data on the "total production amount by country in 2012" of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the total production amount of the European Union is expressed as USD 16.441.4 billion, and the total production amount of the North America FTA is expressed as USD 18.6,089 billion. Moreover, even if statistical data on "total production amount by country in 2012" of the United Nations (UNFCCC), the total production amount of the European Union is expressed as USD 16.57 billion, USD 9.7 billion, USD 197 billion, and USD 29.7 billion, the total production amount of the Free Trade Agreement.

In addition, statistical data of Korea's Statistics Korea, while the total production amount of the European Union was more than the North America FTA in 2008 and 2009, from 2010 to 2012, the total production amount of the North America FTA was more than the European Union, and from 2012, the total production amount of the North America FTA was 18,683.5 billion US dollars and the total production amount of the European Union was 16,57.5 billion US dollars.

Most of the major media in Korea also displayed a report to the effect that “Korea, China, and Japan FTA is concluded, if Korea and Japan FTA is concluded, it would be an integrated regional market at the third level of the world's 3rd level of the Korea, China, and Japan.”

2) As to the contents of the instant issue and the decision of answer

A) As seen above, comprehensively taking account of various data other than the textbook that was published at the time of the instant veterinary testing, the total production amount of the European Union was higher than that of the North America FTA until around 2009, but since around 2010, the total production amount of the North America FTA was advanced by the European Union, and such trend continued until the time of the instant veterinary testing in 2012 and 2013.

B) The issue is raised

The fingerprint of this case is compared with the total output of the European Union and North America Free Trade Agreements, i.e., the total production amount, and as seen earlier, the conclusion may vary depending on how to set the base point of comparison. As such, when misunderstanding, the base point of comparison should be specified in the issue.

However, the question of this case 2) The question of this case does not specify any comparison point at the same time, but there is an indication “2012” (hereinafter “instant year indication”) on the presented map.

The defendants asserted that the meaning of the indication of the year in this case is merely a mere standard of "the German law", that is, the standard of "the criteria to determine the number of member countries of the Free Trade Agreement and the European Union", and that it is not presented as the standard point of time of comparison of the total production amount.

I will look at the cases in less detail.

C) In a case where the indication of the year of this case is deemed only as the basis of the German law (the German law).

As argued by the Defendants, if the indication of the year of this case is considered to be based on the guidance reading law, and if the reference point for the comparison of total production amount is understood to have not been presented in the problem, the fingerprints of this case, the price of which vary depending on the comparison reference point, has already been erroneous even if it was not presented in the comparison reference point, and it is so wrong that the text structure or expression selection of the text or answer clause is only wrong.

D) The indication of the year of this case is deemed to be the standard point of comparison of total production value.

According to the following circumstances: (1) It is reasonable to view the fingerprints of this case as "as the comparative base point for 2012 years with the consideration of the question and presented guidance, to question the total production amount of the Free Trade Agreement with the European Union and North America."

① In a case where the issue, as in the instant case, consists of questions, questions, and answers, the contents of the questions, questions, questions, and answers shall be consistent with objective facts while maintaining logical consistency. Thus, unless an exception is indicated separately, the question shall be the basis for organizing a question along with questions and selecting a answer port.

② The question of the instant issue and the fingerprint itself do not indicate any comparative standard point.

③ In the guidance presented in the instant issue, the reference point for the current state of member states of the European Union and North America Free Trade Agreements is presented as 2012 by specifying an indication of the year in the instant case.

④ If there is no presentation at the comparative standard point as seen in paragraph (c) above, the fingerprints in this case itself cannot be seen as being erroneous.

Ultimately, the standard point of time to determine the right and wrong of the fingerprints of this case is only 2012 years as indicated in the map, and the total production amount in 2012 is more than the European Union. As seen earlier, the fingerprint of this case is deemed to be the fingerprint of this case which is clearly in contravention of objective facts.

3) Determination as to the defendants' assertion

A) The Defendants asserted that the fingerprint of this case is correct fingerprint because it is not a question that is not a question about the statistical values of a particular year, and according to academic significant statistics on the period from 2007 to 2011 at the time of the preparation of a waterable experiment, the average total production amount of the European Union was higher than that of the North America Free Trade Agreement.

However, according to the language and text of the fingerprints of this case, it is clear that the fingerprints of this case simply is compared to the total production amount of the European Union and the North America Free Trade Agreement, and it is not compared with the average total production amount of both parties or the trend of total production amount. The contents of the instructions for setting questions and the choice of the answer shall be objectively identified in accordance with the language and text of the Examination problem itself, and it is not possible for the applicant to arbitrarily write the hidden subjective preparation intention, so this part of the defendants' assertion is difficult to accept).

In addition, the defendants asserted that, among the problems in this case, the fingerprints "a" is clearly correct, and that the fingerprints "b" and "divist" are clearly distorted. However, according to how to interpret the indication of the year in this case, the fingerprints in this case is clearly correct, and therefore, the answer clause that includes "a" which is clearly correct and clearly correct, and that is clearly correct and excluded from "B" and "divist" are not exist outside the two, so only two times can be made according to the answer of the problem in this case, and through the course of high school curriculum, there is no big difficulty in leaving the answer clause 2 in this case as an examinee at the average level of right and wrongness of "a", "b" and "divist".

However, the above assertion by the Defendants is based on the premise that the error of the fingerprints of this case can be changed depending on how to interpret the indication of the year of this case. As seen earlier, if the indication of the year of this case is understood only based on the guidance reading law, the fingerprint of this case constitutes the fingerprint of this case, which is obviously erroneous, because the reference point point for comparison is not presented, and if the indication of this case is understood as the reference point for comparison of the fingerprint of this case, it constitutes the fingerprint of this case in violation of objective facts and constitutes the fingerprint of this case.

As a result, the fingerprint of this case constitutes a fingerprint which is clearly distorted between how to interpret the indication of the year of this case, and the answer that is excluded from both the fingerprints of this case and the fingerprints of “bb,” and “divist,” does not exist in the issue of this case. Therefore, the problem of this case is clear that the examinee at an average level is unable to choose a legitimate answer port, or that there is no answer in the problem itself.

C) The Defendants also explain to the effect that “the European Union has a large total production amount than the North America FTA” in the textbooks pursuant to the revised curriculum in 2009, as seen earlier. Since the fingerprints of this case is a text to examine whether the examinees know the contents of the textbook, the examinees should have determined the answer of this case in accordance with the content of the textbook.

However, if the part of the textbook's technologies relating to the "academic assessment" can be the basis for solving problems, but if the part of the textbook's "preceptic fact" which can be confirmed as statistical values is based on statistics based on statistics based on a specific point of time, it cannot be generalized into fixed and conclusive facts. If the objective statistical data differs from the existing statistics, the contents of the textbook's technologies based on the previous statistics will no longer be consistent with the "preceptic fact".

According to the above, the World Geographical Textbook published in the school affairs stated the total amount of production of the European Union and the North America Free Trade Agreement on the basis of the International Statistical Year 2009, which means that the total amount of production of the European Union as of the year 2009 is larger than that of the North America. The World Geographical Textbook published in the Education is merely described in the world’s largest single market, but does not specifically state the total amount of production of the European Union and the North America Free Trade Agreement. If the textbook’s contents are stated, it cannot be interpreted that the average amount of production of the textbook from 2007 to 2011 is larger than that of the North America Free Trade Agreement, or that the total amount of production of the European Union appears to be always larger than that of the North America FTA.

D) Lastly, the Defendants asserts that if the marking of the year of this case is considered as the base point of time for fingerprinting, in the future, the examinees will be subject to unnecessary burden to new statistical values related to the community search sphere every year, thereby adversely affecting the high school education site.

However, since the World Geographical Subjects published in the school affairs in relation to the fingerprints of this case are presented with the standard of statistics in 2009, even if Defendant Institute established the issue of this case and displayed the comparison standard point of time in 2009 with the fingerprints of this case, it could not increase the burden of study of examinees by giving a water-performance test setting on the basis of the textbook.

Rather, the cause for the preparing error of the problem of this case was caused by the failure of the defendant Institute to clearly present the comparison standard point of time necessary for the fingerprint of this case, and such uncertainty resulted in confusion and burden as to whether the examinee should learn on the textbook basis or should learn on the basis of the latest statistical data. Considering whether the waterway test problem is set up to contribute to the normal operation of high school curriculum or whether the contents of the text are too abstract or difficult, it is the basic role and duty of the defendant Institute. As such, such problems asserted by the defendants should have been removed in advance through a careful review in the course of preparing the problem. The result of the examination error of this case, which occurred due to the failure of the defendant Institute to properly perform this duty, led to the burden of selecting the answer that is inappropriate or nonexistent from the standpoint of the examinee, and it is difficult to see that the defendant Institute, who committed such error, has made such an assertion as above.

4) Sub-determination

Ultimately, the fingerprints of this case is a mistake in the fingerprint itself or in violation of objective facts in interpreting how the indication of the year of this case is used.

B. Whether defendant Evaluation Institute's tort was established

1) Legal status of Defendant Evaluation Institute

The Defendant Evaluation Institute is a government-funded research institute established pursuant to the Act on the Establishment, Operation and Fostering of Government-Funded Research Institutes, Etc. (hereinafter “Government-Funded Research Institutes”). The Act sets the definition of government-funded research institutes as “the main purpose of which is to contribute and research by the Government” (Article 2), and sets the Defendant Evaluation Institute as government-funded funds and other revenues (Article

Article 34(3) of the Higher Education Act provides that the Minister of Education may conduct a test prescribed by Presidential Decree in order to utilize it as admission screening data for the selection of students at universities (Article 34(3)). The Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the Minister of Education shall prepare and publish a master plan for the implementation of a water-related test, that is, the designation or commission of examiners for the examination (Articles 35 through 38). The Presidential Decree provides that matters concerning the delegation and entrustment of administrative authority shall be entrusted to Defendant Evaluation Institute as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act, such as public announcement of the execution of water-related test, preparation of questions, printing of papers, marking and giving notice of a water-related test, designation or commission of examiners for the examination and management personnel (Article 45(3)2).

2) Facts of recognition

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings mentioned above.

A) The process for setting problems of this case

The defendant Evaluation Institute commissioned members of the examination committee of this case as entrusted by the Minister of Education, and the members of the examination committee composed of them prepared a draft of the examination in the state of blocking from the outside from October 2013, and completed the examination paragraph through the examination in the area of social search, individual and common review of the first examination committee and the second examination committee, cross-section review, and final mutual review. The problem of this case was written differently from the attached Form 3 at the time of the first examination, and was replaced by the problem of this case because it was pointed out that it is almost similar to the existing mother examination problem in the process of the examination.

B) The process of raising objection to the instant issue

After the instant water testing, there was an objection to the effect that there was an error in the instant issue from two persons, including examinees, during the period of filing an objection from November 7, 2013 to November 11, 2013.

Accordingly, on November 13, 2013, Defendant Evaluation Institute held an objection working committee during the attendance of 17 working members, including 6 outside experts. The above 16 working members were defined as the issue of "the overall trend" of comparison of the total production amount of the European Union and the North America Free Trade Agreement as shown in attached Table 4, and compared the average total production amount from 2007 to 2011, the average total production amount of the European Union is more than that of the North America Free Trade Agreement, and the textbook is described for the same purpose. Accordingly, the above issue of this case was presented. The remaining 1 working members cited the statistics of 2012, and the total production amount of the North America Free Trade Agreement is more than that of the European Union, compared with the average total production amount from 2007 to 2012, and were dependent on the statistics of textbooks in the specific year, and thus, they did not have any error in the logic of the general working committee of fingerprinting this case.

On the next day, the defendant Evaluation Institute sought advice on the question of this case, the meaning of marking the year of this case, and the authenticity of this case's fingerprints, etc. from the Korea Association of Economic Geographical Studies and the Korea Association of Environmental Education, and the academic society submitted to the defendant Evaluation Institute the opinion that there is no error in preparing the issue of this case's question and making a correct answer, which are similar to the majority opinion of the Working Committee on Examination of the Objection, as shown in the attached Table 5, as of November 15, 2013, which is the next day.

On November 18, 2013, Defendant Evaluation Institute held an objection review committee to determine that there is no error in the setting of the issue and the decision of the answer. Nevertheless, the points of the question setting errors were continuously raised through multiple mass media and society.

3) Fruits of Defendant Evaluation Institute in the course of setting questions

A) In the preparation of a test as an administrative act, the examination questions shall have discretion in a sense that it is possible to freely determine what kind of matter is within the scope of the statutory provisions, what terms and answers can be made with the language or form of language. However, its discretion has limitations that should be exercised properly in the contents and composition of the preparation so that the examination can be evaluated in conformity with the purpose of the test, so if the exercise of its discretion is beyond the limits, it shall be illegal. In the preparation of a multiple-choice test problem, it is reasonable to say that the error written on the premise that it is against objective facts is illegal as abuse or deviation of discretionary power, and even if it is not erroneous against objective facts, it is so wrong that the examination questions or answers are too wrong that the examination questions or answers are made impossible to choose a legitimate answer, or that there is no clear answer in itself, and it shall be 90 or 90 of the examination's ability to make a single answer, and it shall be 90 or 90 of the examination's ability to make a single answer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201390).

B) In the case of this case, the examiners and examiners of the water-related aptitude test of this case are not related to the assessment of school literature, but to set up the issue of this case, including the fingerprints of this case, which is about the misunderstanding of the “human fact”, with a duty of care to enable the applicants to extract one answer by clearly presenting the comparison point, if there is any objective data different from the contents described in the textbook and at any time the comparison point may vary.

Nevertheless, the examiners and examiners of the water testing of this case do not re-examine whether the total production comparison heat of the European Union and North America Free Trade Agreements described in the textbook is maintained even at the time of the water testing of this case, by means of confirming statistical data of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the United Nations, which are the reliable international organizations that were already published at the time of the making of the water testing of this case. 5) The contents of the textbook, described in the statistics of 2009, are consistent with objective facts even at the time of the execution of the water testing of this case, and as a result, there were errors in setting up the problem of this case including the fingerprints of this case where several years have elapsed, and making decisions on the answer of this case 2).

The examination examiners and the examination committee members of this case's errors can be evaluated as deviating from or abusing their discretionary power by preventing the examination committee's commission, examination committee's examination committee's examination committee's examination committee's commission, examination committee's examination committee's examination committee's examination of inappropriate problems and the examination committee's examination of questions, so that the examination committee has a duty of care to make efforts to prevent the examination applicants from receiving wrong results due to the error in preparing or grading.

C) As to this, the Defendants asserted that there was no error in setting up the problem of this case since there was no particular opinion on the specific statistical collection among the members of the examination committee and the examination committee at the time of setting and examining the problem of this case.

However, the fact that several opinions were presented from the review committee at the examination stage of the problem of this case is also 6). The defendants also need to have an overall review of the relevant issue, including the examination items, if there is a problem that is presented in an important examination, such as the hydrologic test. However, the defendant Evaluation Institute did not have to thoroughly examine the relevant issue. In particular, it is not about the academic evaluation of the text of the text where the statistical values are simple comparison, such as the fingerprints of this case, but about the "human fact". Thus, if the defendant Evaluation Institute confirmed the errors in the text of this case at the examination stage, it could have discovered and corrected the contents of the text of this case, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant Evaluation Institute could have found and corrected the contents of the text of this case without confirming the relevant statistical values, and only trust only the contents of the text of the text of this case in which the statistics were reflected in the year 209, it is reasonable to see that it was negligent by failing to exhaust all necessary care in preparing the problem of this case.

Therefore, this part of the defendants' assertion is rejected.

4) Fruits of Defendant Evaluation Institute at the stage of raising an objection

A) The objection to the instant issue was raised immediately after the instant veterinary test was conducted, and there was an opinion from the working committee on the review of the objection to process the objection that the total production of the North America Free Trade Agreement was more than the European Union based on the statistics in 2012 from the working committee on the examination of the objection was presented, and thus, the Defendant Evaluation Institute relied on the opinions of the Korea Economic Geographical Association and the Korea Geographical Education Council, etc., disregarding its opinion.

B) The Defendants asserted that, in light of the fact that the multiple examiners and examiners commissioned outside the Defendant Evaluation Institute were examined several times at the time of setting the issue of this case, there was no particular opinion on the fingerprints between the examiners and examiners, and that the first instance court of the case concerned did not have any errors in setting the question of this case, although the appellate court of the relevant case recognized the errors in setting the question of this case, it is difficult to view that the final decision of this case was erroneous to the extent that it would lose objective legitimacy in the process of raising the objection of this case.

However, the fact that the total production amount of the North America FTA after 2010 is more than the European Union is already objectively revealed by various statistics. The fingerprints of this case does not seem to be a matter of asking "the overall trend" of comparison of the total production amount of the European Union and the North America FTA, and it is bound that the total production amount should be asked on the basis of a specific year. The objection review working committee has presented an accurate opinion on this point. Nevertheless, the majority opinion of the objection review working committee, the Korea Economic Geographical Association and the Korea Geographical Education Association have reached an error of arbitrary interpretation without interpreting the issue of this case and fingerprints as it is, such as defining that the fingerprints of this case is the overall trend of comparison of the total production amount of the EU and the North America FTA.

Thus, even if there was little room for correction of errors by directly participating in the decision making process of the issue and the answer questions at the time of preparing the issue of family affairs, as long as an objection was raised as to the error of preparing the objective statistical data immediately after the examination, it should have taken the necessary corrective measures immediately after making a strict judgment as to whether there was any error that may cause confusion in determining the error of fingerprinting the issue of this case or that may change the objective fact-finding, but such decision was made on the premise that there was no error in the decision making of the issue of this case in accordance with the opinion of the members preparing the question of this case, objection review working committee, and the above academic society.

In the process of raising an objection by the defendant Evaluation Institute, it cannot be deemed that the defendant Evaluation Institute was negligent in failing to fulfill its duty of care required.

5) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the defendant Evaluation Institute was negligent in failing to fulfill its duty of care required in the process of setting the problems of this case and processing them, and the disposition of this case due to negligence of the defendant Evaluation Institute constitutes tort against the plaintiffs.

C. Whether Defendant Republic of Korea is liable for State damages

1) Relevant legal principles

In order to recognize the State's liability for damages caused by the intention or negligence of the examination examiner or the examination examiner who participated in the examination examination process on the ground that the examination results and the examination results were found to be illegal in making the examination questions and the examination results in the examination to be implemented and managed by statutes, whether there is a public interest consideration related to the public interest in conducting the examination as a social system which grants a specific qualification only to an individual who has applied for the examination at a certain level, other than an individual interest, and whether there is a specific qualification; whether the government agency or the public official under its jurisdiction has properly commissioned external professional examination members for preparing the specific examination questions, making the examination answers; whether the examination results and the examination results are appropriate in setting the examination questions; whether the commissioned examination examiner has given the examination questions to the maximum extent possible; whether the examination results were given to the examination examination subjects in an objective point; whether the examination results were given to the examination examiner in the same subject and whether there were any other opinions in the process of making the examination questions; and whether the examination results were given to 300.37.

In addition, the "public official" under Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act shall not be limited to a person who has a status as a public official by the State Public Officials Act, but shall be deemed to refer to all persons who are widely entrusted with public service and actually engaged in public service (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da39060 delivered on January 5, 200).

2) Determination

A) According to the above B. 1’s legal status of Defendant Evaluation Institute’s “legal status” part, Defendant Evaluation Institute is in the position of “public official” and “public official” under Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act to the extent that it performs such duties within the scope of performing such duties.

B) The disposition of this case by Defendant Evaluation Institute is due to negligence due to the process of setting the issue of this case and the duty of care required in the process of its processing, and constitutes tort against the Plaintiffs, as seen earlier, and this means that the disposition of this case loses objective legitimacy.

C) In addition to these circumstances, ① unlike other examinations that grant qualifications to view the secondary examination, the result directly determines the result of the examination of college students or at least has a significant impact on the result of the examination (in practice, some of the plaintiffs did not support the university or college which is eligible to support a specific grade or higher at the time of the examination of university or college entrance as a result of the lower grade of the global geographical subject due to the disposition of the instant case, as a result of the lower grade of the global geographical subject, the disposition of the instant case was insufficient to support the university or college which is eligible to support a specific grade or higher at the time of the examination of university or college entrance), ② the defendant Evaluation Institute could have withdrawn prompt and appropriate measures even after the issuance of the instant case, if it had taken prompt and appropriate measures, then the plaintiffs could have not suffered any further specific damage. ③ Although the instant relief measures were rendered after the issuance of the instant appellate judgment,

D) Comprehensively taking account of all such circumstances, it is reasonable to impose liability on the Defendant Republic of Korea for compensating the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the instant disposition that led to errors in setting up the issue of this case and making a correct answer, etc. by the Defendant Evaluation Institute, who is in the position of “official trust”.

D. Relationship between the Defendants’ responsibilities

1) Whether Defendant Evaluation Institute’s liability is exempted

In a case where a public official inflicts damages on another person in the course of performing official duties by committing an illegal act, the State, etc. shall be jointly liable for damages, in addition to the case where the legislative purport of Article 2(1) main text and Article 2(2) of the State Compensation Act is to ensure the people’s property rights by imposing liability for damages, regardless of whether the public official has been negligent in appointing and supervising the State, etc. sufficiently capable of performing his/her duties, and if the public official remains in office, it is to ensure the stability of the public official’s performance of duties by not imposing liability on the individual (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Da38677, Feb. 15, 1996,

However, it is difficult to view that the responsibility of the defendant Evaluation Institute is a case where it is necessary to secure the stability of the execution of official duties through the exemption of public officials from the liability for the personal room (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da36340, 36357, Apr. 24, 2014). Unlike the employees belonging thereto, the defendant Evaluation Institute cannot be exempted from the liability for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to its execution of duties on the ground of the 11).

2) Non-joint and several relations

Therefore, in performing the work of setting up the issue of this case, which is a public official entrusted by the defendant Republic of Korea, the defendant Institute is liable for tort under Article 750 of the Civil Code, and the defendant Republic of Korea is liable for State compensation under Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, and each of the defendants' responsibilities is in in in a non-joint and several relationship.

E. Sub-decision

Therefore, the defendants jointly are liable to compensate the plaintiffs for mental damage caused by the disposition of this case as they seek.

4. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Occurrence of loss;

1) From among the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs failed to enter universities or colleges at the time of entrance screening in 2014, which had been aimed at the time of the pertinent disposition, but only one year passed since the instant disposition was issued due to safeguard measures, and the designated parties listed in the table Nos. 2 and Nos. 2 to 42, the plaintiff added to the university or college, and the designated parties listed in the table Nos. 2 and 2 to the attached Table Nos. 2, 2014 at the time of entrance screening of the university or college. Further, the plaintiffs suffered a considerable loss due to their failure in the university or college entrance screening for more than one year since they prepared for or completed the first-year course at the university or college entrance screening for the university or college, it is clear that there were damages.

2) On the other hand, even in the case of the designated parties listed in Nos. 43 through 94, which do not correspond to those of the remaining attached Table 2, it cannot be deemed that they did not have any disadvantage in the course of the admission screening of universities due to the instant disposition, since they had no choice but to support the university under the premise of the instant disposition, it cannot be deemed that they did not have any disadvantage in the course of the admission screening of universities due to the instant disposition, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiffs could not be deemed to have recovered all damages that had already occurred to the Plaintiffs.

(b) Justifiable amount of consolation money;

In addition to the above circumstances, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money to the plaintiffs in full view of all the circumstances indicated in this case, including the plaintiffs' age, occupation, economic environment, etc., the amount of consolation money to the plaintiffs is 10,000,000 won for the plaintiffs and the designated parties listed in the 2 to 42 attached Table 2 to the plaintiff and the 2,00,000 won for the plaintiff and the 2,00,000 won for the remaining designated parties, and the amount of consolation money to the others as stated in the 2 to 42 attached Table 2 to the 2,00,000 won for the plaintiff and the 2,00,000 won for the remaining designated parties, respectively.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the Defendants jointly have a duty to jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiffs the respective amount stated in the “personal amount” column in the attached Table 2 table and each of the above amounts, as from November 27, 2013, the date of the instant disposition, to May 10, 2017, which is the date of the instant disposition, 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the Plaintiffs’ claim in this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

The judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in conclusion. As such, the part against the plaintiffs who ordered the above payment among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and order the defendants to pay the above amount. The plaintiffs and the designated parties listed in Nos. 2 through No. 22 of the list of the designated parties No. 1 and the plaintiffs' remaining appeals are all dismissed.

[Attachment]

Judges Soh-ho (Presiding Judge) Constitution of Kim Jong-ho

Note 1) These trends continue to exist until now.

Note 2) The map indicates the member states A and B of the regional economic cooperation body. The right explanation to A and B is only ‘The right explanation to be made as defined in the Ethical>.’

Note 3) The average total production amount from 2007 to 2012 also exceeds the European Union’s Free Trade Agreement.

Note 4) Even if the defendants’ assertion is the issue of comparison of the average total production amount after 2007, the average total production amount from 2007 to 2012 is the same as that of the European Union, and therefore, the fingerprints of this case is an explicit tamper with its fingerprints in this respect.

5) Since 2010, the total production amount of the North America Free Trade Agreement was more than the European Union, and the statistics in 2010 were announced finally by the beginning of 2012 at latest. Thus, if the examiners paid due attention on October 2013, which was at the time of the preparation of the water-related experiment, they could have sufficiently confirmed that the total production amount of the North America Free Trade Agreement had already been advanced by the European Union.

Note 6) However, it is unclear whether there was an opinion about the error of the fingerprints of this case.

7) Furthermore, this is more so in cases where more intensive review was required than other issues due to the shorter relationship between the production period of the problem and the change in the review process as in this case.

8) As seen earlier, on November 14, 2013, the Korea Association of Economic Geographical Studies and the Korea Association of Environmental Education requested consultation as to whether the instant issue and the correct decision were wrong, and thereafter, they responded to the Defendant Evaluation Institute with the same contents as that of the majority opinion of the Working Committee on Examination. In light of the time required for the response and the similarity of the contents of the response, there is doubt as to whether the response was made through normal process without being affected by the outside of the academic society.

Note 9) This seems to have been due to confusions and concerns about responsibilities that may be caused in the event that there is an error in the water testing problem already implemented.

(10) The Plaintiffs are seeking compensation from Defendant Republic of Korea for damages under the Civil Act, in addition to State liability. However, the State Compensation Act, which is a special law, is applicable in cases where Defendant Evaluation Institute claims damages to another person due to intentional or negligent conduct (including progress rooms) in the course of performing public duties entrusted by Defendant Evaluation Institute, and the provisions on employer liability under the Civil Act are excluded (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 76Da2006, Dec. 28, 1976).

Note 11) It does not purport that Defendant Evaluation Institute’s negligence constituted a transitional room.