2. Korea;

(a) Courses of sexual notification of the College Ability Test in 2014;

1) Pursuant to Article 34 of the Higher Education Act, Article 35 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 45(3)2 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority, Defendant Korea Institute of Curriculum Evaluation and Planning (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Institute”) has been entrusted by the Minister of Education for the preparation of questions, printing of questions, marking and the notification of grade, formulation and implementation of detailed implementation plans, etc.

2) In November 7, 2013, 2014, 2014, an examinee passed the 600,000 qualifying examination. Of them, 37,684 examinees, including the Plaintiffs, selected a world ter among the subjects of choice in the area of social search and inspection.

3) After the completion of the examination, the defendant Evaluation Institute issued a correct answer to the 2014 examination by making the answer to the 8th issue of the world geographic (hereinafter referred to as "the issue of this case", and the contents of the issue are the same as stated in attached Form 2) as "A" and "C (hereinafter referred to as "the fingerprint of this case among the issues of this case"), including the 2014 questions, and the plaintiffs did not enter the answer to the question of this case in 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "the fingerprint of this case").

4) In November 2014, some of the examinees who applied for the diversology of the diversity test applied for the objection to the response of the instant issue on the ground that the fingerprints was not consistent with objective facts, and thus, it did not conform with the objective facts. Defendant Evaluation Institute held a diversity review working committee on November 13, 2013 and a review committee on November 18, 2013, and decided that there was no error in the fixed response of the instant issue. On November 27, 2013, Defendant Evaluation Institute decided that there was no error in the fixed response of the instant issue, and notified the Plaintiffs of the results of the diversity test in the 2014th year, including the Plaintiffs, on the premise that the fixed response of the instant issue was ② on the premise that the Plaintiffs were the applicants for the divers test, and notified the Plaintiffs of the results of the diversity test (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(b) Progress of relevant administrative litigation

1) The 21 person subject to the instant disposition, including the Plaintiff AW, BF, CK, BD, CD,C, and BE, filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the division of the College College Ability Test (hereinafter referred to as “related case”) against Defendant Evaluation Institute and the Minister of Education by 2013Guhap29681, Seoul Administrative Court. The fingerprints of this case claimed that the issue of this case is erroneous in setting questions for the following reasons.

① Although the fingerprints of this case is compared with the total production amount of the European Union and North America Free Trade Agreement, it did not present a comparison point. Since the total production amount itself is a domestic total production, a national total production, or a national gross income, it is ambiguous that the fingerprints of this case itself is a serious error in its fingerprints itself.

② In addition, the fingerprint of this case did not present an opportunity for comparison necessary to compare the total production amount. Considering that the map included in the issue of this case is indicated in the year 2012, the time when comparing the total production amount of the European Union and the North America FTA with the fingerprint of this case shall be 2012 years according to the marking of the year of this case, and that the total production amount of the North America FTA is more than the total production amount of the European Union, so the fingerprint of this case is objectively clearly and clearly written.

③ Taking account of these circumstances, the instant fingerprint is not a fingerprints that can be interpreted in a multi-level manner, but rather an objective shot impression, and there is no answer to the instant issue. Defendant KET set up a matter so that the examinee at an average level can not choose a legitimate answer port, thereby deviating from and abusing the discretionary power permissible in setting questions for the objective question.

2) On December 16, 2013, the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant Evaluation Institute on the ground that: (i) the Minister of Education did not take the instant disposition; (ii) the Plaintiff’s claim against the Minister of Education for the revocation of the instant disposition was deemed inappropriate; and (iii) the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Evaluation Institute was dismissed on the grounds that, even if the fingerprints was sold or unclear in the following respect, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant Evaluation Institute could not choose the response of the instant issue.

① Of the issues of this case, the question of ‘A' is clearly correct, and the question of ‘B' and ‘D' and ‘B' and ‘B' and ‘D' shall not be considered to be the fingerprint of this case, as seen below. Therefore, the answer of ‘B' and ‘D' are clearly correct and clearly correct, and the answer of ‘B' and ‘B' which are clearly correct and correct shall not be considered to be the fingerprint of this case. Therefore, since there are no answers of ‘B' which are clearly correct and clearly correct, the answer of this case is the examinee of the average level of right and wrong of ‘B', ‘L' and ‘D' through the course of high school study, there is no big difficulty in making the answer of this case ‘B'.

② In light of the fact that the European Union stated the content of the world’s largest single market without reference to the world’s textbooks adopted in the course of high school curriculum, and the total production amount of the North America FTA was more than the European Union since 2010, the European Union had previously been more than the total production amount of the North America FTA, and the average total production amount from 2007 to 2012 was more than the European Union but the average production amount of the two years from 2007 to 2011 was more than the North America’s Free Trade Agreement, so it is difficult to view the fingerprints as the total production amount can not be seen as 20 years from 20 years from 20 years from 207 to 201, because the European Union’s maximum production amount may vary depending on time.

3) On October 16, 2014, the Seoul High Court (2014du40724) (hereinafter “Seoul High Court”) which was the appellate court of the relevant case appealed 4 Plaintiffs AW and CK, and the Seoul High Court (hereinafter “Seoul High Court”) rendered a judgment that revoked the instant disposition against the Plaintiffs on the ground that, despite the absence of a correct response to the instant issue, Defendant IPE’s determination of the Plaintiffs’ rating in the 2014 EN test on the premise that the fixed response to the instant issue was ②, the determination of the instant issue was made by deeming that the determination of the Plaintiffs’ rating in the 2014 ENE was justifiable, and that, on the premise that the fixed response to the instant issue was ②, the determination was deviating from or abusing the scope of discretionary power in the ENE preparation and grading. The decision of the first instance court revoked the part against the Plaintiffs against the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, it was final and conclusive on November 7, 2014, which was not dissatisfied with the Defendant IPE.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 23, Gap evidence 30-1, 2, Eul evidence 2, 3, 4, 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

The defendant Evaluation Institute neglected to perform its duty of care to prevent any infringement on the rights and legitimate interests of examinees, thereby causing errors in the preparation of the problem of this case and the decision-making of the answer, and it did not recognize the error of setting questions but did not recognize it as an error of setting questions at the time when one year has passed since it committed an illegal act such as recognizing the error of setting questions at the time of the lapse of one year. Therefore, it is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused by such an act.

Meanwhile, according to Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, in cases where a public official or a private person entrusted with public duties causes damage to another person intentionally or by negligence while performing his/her duties, the State is liable to compensate for the damage. Thus, the defendant Republic of Korea is liable to compensate for the plaintiffs' damage caused by the tort committed by the defendant Evaluation Institute entrusted by the Minister of Education with the duties of preparing, preparing, giving answers, making decisions, and notifying results. In addition, according to the provisions on delegation and entrustment of administrative authority, the entrusted agency may give necessary instructions or order measures concerning the entrusted affairs (Article 13(1) of the above Regulations). When it is deemed that the entrusted affairs of the private entrusted institution are illegal or unjust, the entrusted affairs of the private entrusted affairs may be revoked or suspended (Article 13(3) of the above Regulations). The Minister of Education shall direct and supervise the defendant Evaluation Institute so that it does not infringe upon the rights or legitimate interests of the examinee, and thus, the defendant Republic of Korea is also liable for tort.

3. Determination

(a) Standards for liability for damage caused by an error in setting questions for examination;

1) Even if a certain administrative disposition is revoked in an appeal litigation after the appeal is filed, it cannot be determined that the administrative disposition is directly caused by public official’s intentional or negligent act and constitutes a tort by virtue of res judicata, and the public official in charge of the administrative disposition is a general public official.

In light of B’s standard, in a case where it is recognized that an administrative disposition has lost objective legitimacy by neglecting the duty of care, it shall be reasonable to deem that the administrative disposition satisfied the requirements for State liability under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act. In such a case, whether the administrative disposition has lost objective legitimacy should be determined on the basis of whether there is a substantial reason to assume the responsibility for compensating for damages to the State or local governments, by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the type and nature of gains of infringement, the form and cause of administrative disposition that constitutes infringement, the victim’s involvement in the exercise of the administrative disposition, the degree of

2) In order to recognize the State’s liability for damages caused by the intention or negligence of the examination committee members who participated in the examination or the examination examination process on the ground that the State made an error in the setting and determination of questions in the examination to be implemented and managed pursuant to the Acts and subordinate statutes, the State’s examination is a social system that grants a specific level of public interest to individuals who apply for the examination, in addition to the personal interest which grants a specific qualification; whether such examination is given to public interest related to the implementation of the examination; whether the State or public officials belonging to the State or public institutions have properly commissioned external professional examination members for the purpose of preparing specific examination questions; whether the examination questions are given; whether the commissioned examination committee has given a specific number of examination questions; whether the examination is given a specific number of examination questions; whether the examination committee has given a specific number of examination questions; whether the examination is given a specific number of examination questions; whether the examination committee has given a different opinion from the examination committee’s decision making process; whether the examination committee has an objective reason to determine whether the examination is legitimate or not after the examination applicant’s error; and whether the examination committee’s 20130

1) Facts of recognition

The following facts are acknowledged by Gap evidence 23, Eul evidence 1, 5 through 16, 18, 19, Eul evidence 20-1, 2, Eul evidence 20-20, Eul evidence 21, 22, Eul evidence 21 and 22, the witness's testimony and the whole purport of oral argument, and the testimony of Gap evidence 25, witness CR is not believed.

A) The process for setting problems of this case

(1) Defendant Evaluation Institute entrusted by the Minister of Education and promoted the members preparing the water performance test questions of this case. The members preparing the draft of the examination in a state of blocking from the outside, and the draft of the examination was completed through the examination in the area of social search, the first review committee and the second review committee's individual and common review, cross-section, and the last mutual review committee's final review.

(2) At the time of cross-examination between the territories, one of the examiners presented the opinion that "EU and NAFTA was called a regional economic cooperative," and whether the term is appropriate, and whether the investment in a foreign country was increased rapidly in Mexico after the formation of NAFTA. As a result of this review, the first opinion is more accurate expressions rather than regional economic cooperative, but it was agreed to maintain the term "regional economic cooperative," since the term "regional economic cooperative," as it is written in a treaty, instrument, or consultative body rather than a regional economic cooperative," and the second opinion was confirmed that the number of foreign direct investment in Mexico was increased rapidly after the establishment of the NA FTA as a result of data research. In the course of the preparation, there was no problem other than the above two opinions on the issue of this case.

B) The process of determining the response of the instant issue

(1) From November 7, 2013 to November 11, 2013, three persons raised six objections to the instant issue, one of which was the opinion that there was no error in the instant issue, and the remaining two of which was the opinion that there was an error in the instant fingerprint.

(2) On November 13, 2013, Defendant Evaluation Institute held an objection by 17 members, including 6 external experts, while attending the meeting. At the above committee, 16 members presented opinions that there is no error in the correct response to the instant issue, and 1 members presented opinions that the fingerprints was erroneous, and the Working Committee on the Examination determined that there was no error in the correct response to the instant issue.

(3) On November 14, 2013, Defendant Evaluation Institute requested consultation on the question of this case, the meaning of indication of this year, and the authenticity of this case’s fingerprints. On November 15, 2013, Defendant Evaluation Institute presented to Defendant Evaluation Institute an opinion that there is no error in the fixed response of the issue of this case, such as the statement in the “Attachment 3’s Opinion”.

(4) On November 18, 2013, Defendant Evaluation Institute held a review committee to determine that there is no error in the response to the instant issue.

C) The response rate of the instant issue was 49.89% as a result of the global efficiology rating. The response rate by grade on the instant issue was 100%, 2nd class 91%, 3rd class 80%, 4th class 64%, 5th 47%, 6th class 29%, 7th class 18%, 8th class 12%, 9th class 7%.

D) The circumstances after the judgment of the appellate court of the relevant case

(1) On October 31, 2014, the Ministry of Education and the defendant Evaluation Institute issued a policy to accept the decision without filing a final appeal against the judgment of the appellate court of the relevant case, and to relieve the victimized students by re-calculated global geographical records.

(2) On November 20, 2014, Defendant Evaluation Institute published the results of global geographical property re-determination, and the adjusted results of global geographical property may be verified and printed on the Defendant Evaluation Institute website from November 20, 2014 to November 26, 2014, but the said period was extended to December 19, 2014. Defendant Evaluation Institute published the fact of global geographical property re-determination and the method of verifying the verification thereof in the Seoul Newspapers, a daily newspaper on November 28, 2014.

(3) The Ministry of Education, from December 17, 2014, intended the students who can pass an additional examination by re-fixing the results of the student's screening process changed among the students who applied for the screening in 2014 screening for each university.

(4) Accordingly, the measures for remedy against the plaintiffs, such as attached Form 4, have been implemented.

2) Determination

In accordance with the above legal principles, in order for the plaintiffs to be recognized as tort, the examination committee members, members preparing the issue of this case, members preparing the examination committee, and employees of defendant Evaluation Institute to perform objective duty of care, and the 2014th of the plaintiffs' 2014 decision-making of global geographical subjects has lost objective legitimacy, and there is a substantial reason to assume the responsibility for compensating damages to defendant Evaluation Institute. The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in full view of the following circumstances revealed in the above facts is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

A) In light of the fact that multiple examiners and examiners commissioned outside the defendant Evaluation Institute were examined several times at the time of the setting of the problem of this case, but there was no particular opinion on the fingerprints between the examiners and examiners, that there was no error in the correct response of the problem of this case among 17 members of the Evaluation Working Committee, that there was no error in the question of this case even in the Korean Economic Geological Association and the Korean Association of Environmental Education, and that there was no error in the setting of the problem of this case in the judgment of the first instance of the relevant administrative litigation, although the court of appeal recognized the error in the setting of the problem of this case at the appellate court of the relevant administrative litigation, it is difficult to view that the setting of the question of this case and the decision of the correct response of this case were erroneous to the extent that it would lose objective legitimacy.

B) In addition, even from the procedural point of view, considering the fact that the defendant Evaluation Institute commissioned outside members to make a draft of the examination questions and completed the examination questions through a series of reviews by the review committee members, and that one of the 17 evaluation committee members raised an objection to the determination of the question of this case was above the regular response of the problem of this case, the defendant Evaluation Institute requested consultation from the Korean Association of Economic Geographical Studies and the Korean Association of Environmental Education, and decided that there was no error in the regular response of the problem of this case after the two organizations received opinions from both organizations that there is no error in the correct response of the problem of this case, it is deemed that the defendant Evaluation Institute has taken necessary and possible measures in place with regard to the preparation of the question of this case and the decision of the correct response of this case.

C) In addition, considering the fact that the experts commissioned by the defendant Evaluation Institute and the tensions of related academic societies expressed their position that there is no problem in the determination of the response of the issue of this case, and that the first instance court ruled that there is no error in the relevant administrative litigation, it is difficult for the defendant Evaluation Institute to expect that the defendant Evaluation Institute would recognize the error of setting problems and take relief measures against the damaged students prior to the judgment of the appellate court of the relevant administrative litigation, and considering the fact that the appellate court of the relevant administrative litigation lost it, it cannot be deemed that the defendant Evaluation Institute illegally delayed the ex post facto relief procedure, taking into account the fact that it has taken active measures, such as prompt re-determination of the global interest of all examinees who have been processed

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case against the defendants on the premise that the defendant Evaluation Institute committed a tort in the course of setting up the issue of this case and deciding the answer of this case are all dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Muma decoration

Judges Cho Jong-chul