전문의자격시험불합격처분취소 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. After obtaining a doctor’s license on February 14, 201, the Plaintiff applied for the first test (hereinafter “instant test”) among the 59th specialist qualifying examination at the Twel University on January 8, 2016, in the circumstance that the Plaintiff received training from B from the Kwel National Medical Center of Tol University and received training from B on February 29, 2016.
The examination of this case was conducted on the second intersections, and the first intersections from 09:0 to 11:00, and the second intersections from 11:30 to 12:30, respectively.
B. The Plaintiff completed a single test and submitted a test site and an answer site, and completed a second test, and submitted a test site and an answer site, and then entered the rate test in blank.
(hereinafter “instant act”). After the completion of the test, the question remaining in the test site was discovered to the test supervisor.
C. On January 14, 2016, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff committed an unlawful act while publishing a successful applicant for the instant examination; and (b) rejected the Plaintiff’s disposition by excluding the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the grounds for disposition exist. The Plaintiff did not transfer the test site of this case as it is, but submitted both the test site and the answer site, and was dependent on memory after the test was completed and the test site was completed. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the test site was completed, the Plaintiff’s guidelines to deal with the Cheating in the Medical Doctors’s Qualifying Examination (hereinafter “instant guidelines”).
(2) The identification number of evidence Nos. 7, 9, 10, and 22 cannot be considered as being included in the definition of fraudulent act as set out in Article 3 of the Guidelines, even if it falls under the category of fraudulent act as set forth in Article 5 subparag. 7.