1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In full view of the provisions of Articles 5(1) and 5-2(4) of the Certified Tax Accountant Act, even if a successful candidate passed the first qualifying examination for certified tax accountants, it is merely a premise that he/she is eligible to take the second qualifying examination at the meeting and the second qualifying examination at the next meeting, and it does not change the legal status of the successful candidate itself. Thus, if a successful candidate passed the first qualifying examination for certified tax accountants newly implemented after a failure to pass the first examination, it shall be deemed that there is no legal interest to seek revocation of the failure disposition (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu2685, Feb. 23, 1996; 2008Du2675, Sept. 10, 2009, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff 4, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 25 filed the lawsuit in this case seeking revocation of the disposition when the plaintiff 4, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 25 applied for the first examination for a certified tax accountant qualification examination conducted on April 19, 2012 and failed to pass such examination. However, it can be known that the court below passed the first examination for the 50 certified tax accountant qualification examination conducted on April 27, 2013 while the lawsuit in this case is pending and received a disposition. Thus, the above plaintiffs have no legal interest in dispute over the validity of the rejected disposition. Accordingly, the court below maintained the judgment on the merits of the lawsuit in this case and rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal against the above plaintiffs by maintaining the judgment of the first instance court which accepted the above plaintiffs' claim, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error has merit.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

On April 19, 2012, the lower court determined that all of the issues A-type 53 (B-type 53), B-type 70 (B-type 70) and B-type 74 (B-type 77) in question among the issues of the first tax law-related theory, which were implemented on April 19, 2012, included the provisions of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which is an individual tax law subject of the tax law-related theory or the tax law-related law-related law-specific subject of the second tax-related law-related law-related law-related law-related law-related law-related law-related law-related law-related law-related law-related law-related law-related law-related law-related law-related law-related tax law-related law-related law-related law-related law-related law-related law-related law-related law-related law-related law-related law-related law

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Supreme Court precedents, scope of setting questions or the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part against the plaintiffs 4, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 25 cannot be maintained as they are, and thus, this part of the judgment is reversed. This part of the judgment of the court of first instance is sufficient for the Supreme Court to directly render a judgment. As seen above, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance which judged on the merits of the lawsuit of this case by the above plaintiffs was unlawful on the same ground as the part against the above plaintiffs in the judgment of the court below, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed. In addition, the remaining appeals are dismissed as they are without merit, and all of them are dismissed. The total costs of lawsuit between the above plaintiffs and the defendant are assessed against the above plaintiffs,

[Attachment] List of Plaintiffs: Omitted

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)