2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

The Defendant’s disposition not to grant evaluation to the Plaintiff on January 27, 2015 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

"The defendant violated the Administrative Procedures Act in rendering the disposition of this case" as to the plaintiff's argument, the first instance court held that "(i) it cannot be deemed that the defendant specified and publicly announced the criteria for the assessment and approval prior to rendering the disposition of this case, and since the specific publication of the criteria for the assessment and approval does not seem to have a considerable reason to believe that it considerably difficult in light of the nature of the disposition of this case or significantly detrimental to public safety and welfare, the disposition of this case was in violation of Article 20(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act, and (ii) the disposition of this case was made in violation of Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act, since it seems that there was considerable obstacle to the plaintiff's moving to the administrative remedy procedure because the grounds for the disposition of this case were not presented properly, and even if the defendant did not appear to have raised any objection from the trial of this case, the above decision of the first instance court is proper and acceptable and the defendant'

Therefore, the reasoning for the judgment of the court concerning this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gung-sung

The number of judges