2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. The defendant was entrusted by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs to conduct a qualifying examination for assistant housing managers on September 7, 2008 (hereinafter "the examination of this case"), and the details of the examination are as follows.

1) Subjects of the examination

A) The first examination: Civil Act, accounting principles, and theory of the opening of multi-family housing facilities

(b) Second examination: Housing management-related laws and regulations, multi-family housing management practice;

2) Method of examination

(A) implement the same date by dividing the first and the second tests;

B) The primary examination questions shall be, in principle, five multiple-choice questions and 40 questions per subject;

C) In principle, the second examination questions shall be multiple-choices with five multiple-choices, and four questions by subject shall be subjective (other than a single-choice test).

40 questions per subject (the multiple-choice and the essay-type) shall be drawn up and drawn up 40 points per subject (the multiple-choice and the essay-type);

the same section).

3) Selection of successful candidates

(a) First examination: At least 40 points in each subject out of 100, and the deliberation of all subjects;

A person who gains at least 60 points per capita;

(b) Second examination: Each of the subjects, being the perfect score of 100, among those who have passed the first examination; and

A person who has obtained at least 40 points in all subjects and at least an average of 60 points;

B. On October 15, 2008, the Defendant issued a disposition of failure to pass the instant examination (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The Plaintiff passed the first examination, but obtained the average of 60 points of housing management-related laws and regulations, 57 in the second examination, and 58 in the multi-family housing management practice, which failed to meet the passing standards of the instant examination” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Uncontentious facts, Gap’s evidence 1, Eul’s evidence 1, and Eul’s evidence 2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The question at issue of 40 and 78 in the second examination (at all, the question is the sequences according to the question A), all, is designated as 2 in each one and 2 in each of the two answers. Since the answer to be entered respectively within 2 in each of the two answers is a separate answer having no correlation, it shall be recognized as a partial score equivalent to 25 points (2. 5 points / 2) in each of the above questions if one of the two answers is correct, and if so, 60 in each of the above questions is the average test score of the plaintiff who entered one of the answers as 1 in each of the above questions, and the plaintiff has satisfied the passing criteria of the examination of this case.

2) However, the Defendant given scores to the Plaintiff who met the above passing criteria by putting up two answers only when the two answers are drawn up on a correct answer without recognizing any part of the aforesaid subjective points by deviating from or abusing discretion, without giving clear marking the above subjective points to the examinees in advance. However, the Defendant issued the instant disposition against the Plaintiff who met the above passing criteria.

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case should be revoked as it is unlawful.

(b) Facts of recognition;

1) The issue of 40 days in the second examination, the answer entered by the Plaintiff, and the answer are as follows.

2) The issue of No. 78 of the second examination, the answer entered by the Plaintiff, and the answer are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

【Ground of recognition】 Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

1) In a qualifying examination conducted under the Acts and subordinate statutes, the method of setting questions and setting points, the method of setting points, the detailed method and criteria for calculating points, the selection of successful applicants, etc. are, in principle, left to the decision-making of the unique policy of the performers at the time of the examination, and, in principle, matters belonging to a wide size of discretion. However, it shall be deemed that the above Acts are applicable only when it is determined that the method or criteria violate the Constitution or laws, lack of reasonableness, lack of objective legitimacy, or when it is determined that the method or criteria was considerably unreasonable or unreasonable in light of the purpose of the examination, the purpose of the examination, and the purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da66770, Dec. 13, 2007, etc.).

2) In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the following circumstances, the health team and the aforementioned evidence show the overall purport of the pleading, even if the defendant did not clearly announce that the examinees in advance do not recognize the partial score of the above subjective problem, it is deemed that the defendant gives points only when two answers are entered in the correct answer without recognizing the partial score under the aforesaid subjective problem, which is given by the defendant, constitutes a business process within the discretionary limit given to the defendant in terms of the preparation of the examination of this case, the allocation of marks, and the method and criteria for grading. Thus, the disposition of this case does not constitute an unlawful act of deviating from and abusing discretionary authority.

A) In order to achieve the purpose of the instant examination which is to evaluate the knowledge and ability necessary to perform the duties of assistant housing managers, the Defendant, who implemented the instant examination after being entrusted by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, has broad discretion based on the unique expertise and policy judgment in the preparation, allocation, method and criteria of marking, etc., and the decision on whether to determine whether to recognize the partial score for the examinees who have understood only a part of the problem in the marking of the given subjective problem is within the scope of the Defendant’s aforementioned discretion.

B) In light of the fact that both the questions of No. 40 and No. 78 are composed of one clause consisting of a single subject, and that the answers are to be entered in the order of answers in two copies, respectively, constitutes a content closely related to each other.

C) The Defendant applied the marking criteria that did not recognize a partial score for all examinees who applied for the instant examination at the same time, and did not recognize a partial score in all subjective issues of the instant examination.

3) Therefore, the aforementioned assertion by the Plaintiff on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.

Judges 000

Judges OOO -