2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

(1) The Plaintiff passed the 51st national examination for veterinarian in 2007, which was held on January 12, 2007, as a graduate of foreign veterinary college.

(2) On December 28, 2007, the defendant issued a notice to the plaintiff on December 28, 2007 that the plaintiff submitted documents proving the qualification for a veterinarian examination under the main provision of the former Veterinarians Act (amended by Act No. 6570 of Dec. 31, 2001), the main provision of the former Veterinarians Act (amended by Act No. 5953 of Mar. 31, 199), and the main provision of the former Veterinarians (amended by Act No. 5953 of Mar. 31, 199) (hereinafter "the supplementary provision of this case") shall be applied, and the plaintiff shall not be eligible for a veterinarian examination under the supplementary provision of this case.

(3) On February 18, 2008, the Defendant issued the disposition of this case invalidating the passing of the 51th veterinarian national examination against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s attendance at the Department of Dental medicine of the Philippines at the time of December 31, 2001 was confirmed, and the Plaintiff’s attendance at the Department of Dental medicine of the Philippines at the time of December 31, 2001 does not constitute “the Plaintiff’s attendance at the Department of Dental medicine” as stipulated in the supplementary provision of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, Eul 5, 6, and 7

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The former Veterinarians Act (amended by Act No. 5953, Mar. 31, 199; hereinafter "the former Act") stipulated that "a person who obtained a bachelor's degree with a major in veterinary science at a foreign university recognized by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry" as one of the qualifications for taking a national examination for veterinarian. The amended Act strengthened the qualifications of "a person who obtained a veterinarian's license in a foreign country (including a veterinary department at a college with a department of veterinary science) and graduated from a college at a foreign country (including a veterinary department at a college with a department of veterinary science)" and subsequently, in order to protect the trust of the students in a foreign veterinary college with the trust of acquiring the qualifications for a national examination for veterinarian equivalent to those of domestic veterinary graduates at a foreign veterinary college, the former Act acquired the qualifications for a national examination for veterinarian in a foreign college with a major in veterinary science or with a bachelor's license in a foreign college prior to December 31, 201, which was recognized by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry."

(2) Although the Plaintiff applied for the veterinarian’s national examination and submitted all documents required by the Defendant, and there is no difference from the facts among the documents submitted, the Defendant unilaterally invalidates the Plaintiff’s passing of the statutory interpretation on the ground of a mistake is contrary to the principle of trust protection, as well as violates the principle of proportionality, since the disadvantage suffered by the Plaintiff is remarkably so high compared to the public interest obtained by the aforementioned disposition.

B. Relevant statutes

/ Veterinarians (amended by Act No. 5953 of March 31, 1999)

Article 9 (Eligibility for Examination) Any person who may apply for a national examination for veterinarian, shall not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 5, and shall be any of the following persons:

1. A person who has graduated from a college specializing in veterinary science (including veterinary science at a college with veterinary science) and has obtained a bachelor’s degree in veterinary science;

2. Persons who have majored in veterinary science at foreign universities recognized by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry;

/ Veterinarians (amended by Act No. 5953 of March 31, 1999)

Article 9 (Eligibility for Examination) Any person who may apply for a national examination for veterinarian, shall not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 5, and shall be any of the following persons:

1. A person who has graduated from a college specializing in veterinary science (including veterinary science at a college with veterinary science) and has obtained a bachelor’s degree in veterinary science;

2. A person who has obtained a foreign veterinarian's license after graduating from a school falling under subparagraph 1 in a foreign country.

Addenda

(1) This Act shall enter into force on the date three months have elapsed since its promulgation: Provided, That the amended provisions of Article 9 shall enter into force on January 1, 2002.

(Transitional Measures concerning Qualifications for Taking National Examination for Veterinarians) Any person who, prior to December 31, 2001, has attended, or obtained a bachelor’s degree in veterinary science at the relevant foreign university recognized by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry under subparagraph 2 of Article 9, prior to December 31, 201, shall be governed by the previous provisions.

/ Veterinarians (amended by Act No. 6570 of December 31, 2001)

Addenda

(1) This Act shall enter into force on the date six months have elapsed since its promulgation: Provided, That the amended provisions of paragraph (4) of the Addenda to the Veterinarians Act (Act No. 5953) shall enter into force on the date of its promulgation.

C. Determination

(1) Regarding the qualifications for taking a national examination for a veterinarian of a foreign medical college, the former Act stipulated that “A person who has majored in veterinary science at a foreign college recognized by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry,” but the former Act, since 1998, has been extended from 199 to 6 years, the former Act strengthened the above qualifications for taking a national examination for a veterinarian of the foreign medical college to “a person who has graduated from a college specializing in veterinary science in a foreign country (including a veterinary department at a college with a veterinary department) and obtained a foreign veterinarian’s license.” On December 31, 2001, prior to the enforcement date of the amended Act, the former Act amended the former Act amended the qualifications for taking a national examination for a veterinarian of a foreign medical college with the trust that he/she obtained a national examination for a veterinarian of a foreign medical college with a bachelor’s license in the foreign medical college and that he/she shall obtain a license for taking a national examination for a veterinarian of the foreign medical college with the trust that he/she obtained a national examination for a veterinarian of the foreign medical college

In light of the above circumstances leading up to the amendment of the Veterinarians Act and the legislative purpose and purport of the supplementary provision of the supplementary provision of this case, the supplementary provision of this case applies to those who are enrolled in a foreign veterinary college (including those who were enrolled in a school due to military service, disease, etc.) as of December 31, 2001, which was prior to the enforcement of the amended Act, and prior to that, those who were enrolled in a foreign veterinary college but were enrolled in a veterinary college but did not attend the college as of December 31, 201 shall not be deemed to be applicable to those who were enrolled in a veterinary college.

(2) According to the statements in Eul 2-3-7 and 3-10, the Plaintiff did not actually attend the Philippines, such as: (a) the Plaintiff paid a registration fee of USD 300 in the first semester of 1997-198 (from June 1997 to October 1997) and registered in the veterinary Department of A University, but did not obtain full credits (it was in the United States until October 29, 1997). After completing the duty of military service, the Plaintiff was unable to enter the Philippines on November 7, 200 after having completed the duty of military service and was enrolled in the Dental Department of B University from November 1, 200 to October 10, 200; and (b) during the course of study from C University from November 203 to March 205 to March 207, 200 to the D University. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18100, Nov. 3, 2005>

According to the above facts, the plaintiff shall be deemed to have renounced his status as a student of the department A at the time of December 31, 2001, while attending the department of dental medicine at B University at the time of December 31, 2001. Thus, the plaintiff is not subject to the supplementary provision of this case since he is not in school or in school at the time of December 31, 2001. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion on a different premise is without merit (the plaintiff is subject to a bachelor's degree after studying at other veterinary colleges than the veterinary colleges that were not before December 31, 201, as stipulated in the supplementary provision of this case, and the plaintiff is not subject to the supplementary provision of this case).

(3) According to the statement Eul 1, the defendant announced that "I will cancel the pass when a candidate is found to have a ground for disqualification after the announcement of the successful candidate" as one of the precautions for the applicant at the time of the 51th veterinarian national examination, and the supplementary provision of this case is for securing the minimum ability and self-quality of a veterinarian by strengthening the qualification for the graduates of foreign medical colleges who can apply for the national veterinarian examination. Thus, insofar as the plaintiff did not have the qualification for the national veterinarian examination from the beginning, invalidation of the pass of the national veterinarian examination against the plaintiff cannot be deemed as infringing the plaintiff's trust or violating the principle of proportionality. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong Jong-young (Presiding Judge)