2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On May 30, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for a pilot training examination conducted by the Defendant pursuant to Article 15(1) and (2) of the Pilotage Act and Articles 5 and 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

B. The examination for pilot trainees in 2014 was conducted by dividing it into a written examination (hereinafter referred to as the "examination in this case"). The examination in this case consists of three subjects, including laws and regulations (in the essay 4, allocated 35 points), operational skills, navigational aids (in the essay 4, allocated 35 points), English (in the English language 2, English interpretation 2, allocated 30 points), and English (in the English language 30 points), and the method of examination is the subjective written examination in the paragraph 4 of each subject, and other matters related to the above examination are as listed below.

1. An examination date. The number of persons to be selected: 16 persons to be selected: the examination date and place 1: the examination date on June 26, 2014; 09:00 to 14:302; the examination committee selection of examination committee members on June 26, 2014; 1) the examination committee members: State public officials of Grade 4 or higher who have expertise and experience in the examination subjects for trainees, such as the selection of candidates for the examination committee members; 2) the number of examination committee members, the examination committee members, and the interview committee members, who are commissioned with two or more persons for each subject (three subjects), and the examination committee members are commissioned with two or more persons for each subject; 3) the examination committee members to be selected as examination committee members by not later than two days prior to the examination date (appointed); since the examination room is 6,23.0 (Monthly) and thus, the examination committee members are commissioned by the chairperson or the examination committee members by not later than June 20 (gold).

The questions that can be evaluated as expert knowledge necessary to conduct the written examination - 4 points which can be included in the essay- 5 questions and short answer questions; 10 points and 2 points which are the first class mate qualifying examination level ; 3 points ; 10 points ; 5 points ; 3 points ; 4 points among 18 points ; 4 points ; 5 points ; 4 points ; 5 points ; 5 points ; 5 points ; 10 points ; 4 points ; 5 points ; 5 points ; 5 points ; 10 points ; 4 points ; 10 points ; 1, 5 points ; 10 points ; 5 points ; 10 points ; 5 points ; 10 points ; 3 points ; 4 points ; 4 points ; 4 points ; 4 points ; 50 points ; 3 points ; 4 points ; 500 out ; 3 points ;

C. As a result of the Plaintiff’s marking of the answer by subject of the instant examination, the Plaintiff obtained a total of 5.75 points by taking 16.5 points in law, 16.5 points in operational and navigational aids, 23.25 points in English and 16 points in English, respectively. On July 1, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition rejecting the instant examination against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s record falls short of 60% of the total point of all subjects stipulated in Article 7(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Pilotage Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) As to the issue of No. 1 of the law subject (hereinafter referred to as "No. 1 issue").

A) The first issue is based on the premise that A was found to have been at the speed of 060 Do 11 p.m. 26 minutes prior to the collision, and that A was at the speed of 10 Do 090 p.m. from the direction of 10 Do 090 p.m. to the speed of 14:48 p.m., it changed to 090 p.m., the two minutes prior to the collision, and followed by the direction of about 30 Do 10 p.m. to the port line of 26 m.m., the above problem is based on the premise that A was found to have been within the 10 m.m. 10 m.m. from the direction of 10 m.m. on the port line to the 4m.m. m. m., the Plaintiff’s error was within the distance of 20 m. 4 m.m. m. from the front line.

A person shall be appointed.

B) According to the grading criteria for the first issue, the navigational navigation of “nick channel etc.” is not applicable. Accordingly, the navigational navigation of Article 13(1)1 of the Public Order in Open Ports Act or Article 96 of the Maritime Safety Act should be applied to the said issue, but otherwise the navigational navigation of Article 13(1)1 of the Maritime Safety Act as a overtaking method under the Maritime Safety Act. Therefore, since the examination committee members granted a lower point to the Plaintiff by applying the objectively erroneous grading criteria for the first issue, it is deemed that the setting of grading criteria or the grading method in accordance with the said criteria has deviates from or abused discretion (hereinafter referred to as “second assertion”).

2) With respect to the two problems, the points that the plaintiff himself marks (or the points that the examiner marks separately after the examination) and the points that the examiner marks with respect to the two problems (or the points that the examiner marks to the expert) are too different, different from those of operational and navigational aids (12 points, 12.5 points for each problem, 7 points for each problem, 8 points, 4 points for each problem, 1 point for each one, 1 point for each one, 3 points for each of the examination committee, and 4 points for each of the above problems, and the points that the examiner marks are almost similar to each other for each of the above problems) are different from 4 points and 1 points for each of the examination committee. Accordingly, in full view of the above points, the examination committee marks are deemed to have been conducted by abusing and abusing discretion with respect to the second problem.

3) In relation to the questions of English subject 1 (hereinafter referred to as "three-party questions"), a pilot has been granted discretion to the examination committee. However, the discretionary authority has limitations that should be properly exercised in the contents and composition of the preparation so as to evaluate the ability of examinees in line with the purpose of the examination in this case. However, the fingerprints of the third issue includes a "Arinis" which is not registered in the English prior (excluding license prior) which is domestically listed or is not introduced in the maritime-related professional book, and thus, the 3-party questions of the examination committee exceeded or abused its discretionary authority.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

1) The fingerprinting of the issues of paragraphs 1 through 3 is as indicated in the separate examination issue.

2) The grading criteria for the issue of No. 1 are as shown in the attached Form.

3) The points that the Plaintiff acquired in the first and second issues are as listed below.

A person shall be appointed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Determination as to the Facts without dispute, Eul's entries and the purport of whole pleadings, as stated in Eul's Evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11

1) On the first issue:

A) Part of the first argument

Based on the facts stated that "A" heading B was found in the direction of 26 minutes prior to the collision with "B" heading 10 minutes prior to the collision with "B" heading 26 minutes prior to the collision, the plaintiff tried to see that the speed referred to in subparagraphs A and B was specified from the above discovery to the point of time of the collision with "B" heading 26 minutes prior to the collision with the heading 10 minutes prior to the collision with the heading 26 minutes prior to the collision with the heading 10 minutes prior to the collision with the heading 26 minutes prior to the collision with the heading 26 minutes prior to the collision with the heading 10 minutes prior to the collision with the heading 26 minutes prior to the collision with the heading 10 minutes prior to the collision with the heading 6 minutes prior to the collision with the heading 10 minutes prior to the discovery of the collision with the heading 1 and the heading 6 at the time of the collision with the heading.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit, which is premised on the damage of this case.

B) As to the marking criteria for the second part of the claim No. 1, the Maritime Safety Act provides that the Maritime Safety Act provides that the Maritime Safety Act shall apply to the method of overtaking as stipulated in Article 71. In this regard, the Plaintiff asserts that the Maritime Safety Act shall apply, not to the aforementioned overtaking method, Article 13 of the Public Order in Open Ports Act and Article 96 of

In all kinds of examinations implemented by the State, setting methods of evaluation and standards for the body point is an act of discretion to be freely determined by the competent administrative agency within the scope prescribed by statutes in consideration of the purpose, contents, etc. of the examination, given the nature of expertise and policy (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da33960, Apr. 10, 201).

Based on this, this case is examined. ① The provisions of the Maritime Safety Act are dealt with in Chapter 6 of the above vessel's Maritime Safety Act, and among these cases, the vessel's 'within the boundaries of open ports prescribed by Presidential Decree pursuant to Article 3 of the Public Order in Open Ports Act' are separately prescribed in Chapter 3 of the Public Order in Open Ports Act (this refers to the facilities outside the boundaries of port designated and publicly notified by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, such as anchorages). However, the 'within the boundaries of open ports' or the 'within the boundaries of open ports' of which the Public Order in Open Ports Act is applied to the 1st issue cannot be concluded to be applied to the above 'disorder in Open Ports Act'. ② The plaintiff's 's 's Maritime Safety Act' is no longer applicable to the above 'disorder 67 of the Maritime Safety Act' and the 's Maritime Safety Act' is no longer applicable to the above 's Maritime Safety Act' because it can be seen that there is a conflict between the above 'sive measures.

Therefore, in the first issue, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit under the premise that the overtaking method of Article 71 of the Maritime Safety Act is not applicable.

2) As to the second issue

A) The examination of this case, like the second issue, is implemented in order to comprehensively evaluate the overall understanding of the applicant's related fields, logical thinking ability, application ability related to the resolution of the issues presented in the question, creativity and systematic descriptive ability. The examination of this case is a useful means to measure the applicant's overall academic achievement and thinking ability through the objective-choice test or multiple-choice test or short-answer test. The marking of such essay-type test is expected to depend entirely on evaluation based on high professional professional knowledge and knowledge, etc., which the applicant with high reputation and responsibility is not based on the objective and content of the examination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Du1434, Apr. 14, 201). Thus, in the second issue of the examination of this case, the examination committee can make a decision based on its independent judgment and discretion within the scope determined by law, considering the purpose and content of the examination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Du1304, Apr. 1, 2014).

B) Therefore, in full view of the following circumstances revealed in light of the above recognized facts and the contents of the relevant laws and regulations, it is not deemed that the examination committee’s grading on the second issue of the Plaintiff’s second issue of the examination of this case was a deviation or abuse of discretionary power. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(1) As seen earlier, in light of the nature of the instant test, there may be differences in points that the applicant prepared the essay questions and that the examination committee gives after giving marks according to the grading criteria, and it is difficult to view that the grading committee’s marking of the essay-type examination is illegal unless it significantly deviates from the scope of discretion.

(2) In light of the fact that the examination of this case is conducted in order to comprehensively evaluate the degree of overall understanding about the relevant field of applicants, organizational descriptive ability, etc. and that discretion based on the expertise of the examination committee is recognized at the time of marking, there is a big difference between the examination committee’s subjective expectation and the score acquired in fact on the grounds of an inaccurate recognition of the basic concept of applicants or an scriptive description, etc.

(3) The examination of this case was lawfully implemented according to the method of examination, subjects, selection of examiners, and determination of successful examinees as prescribed by the relevant statutes. The examination committee members selected to mark the examination of this case seems to have prepared the grading criteria on the examination of this case based on their professional knowledge and knowledge and experience in the examination of this case. In addition, in order to ensure the grading process, the examination of this case adopts the method of individually grading two examination committee members and determining the average score of each subject.

(4) In light of the circumstances described in paragraphs (1) through (3) above, even if the points that the Plaintiff received in the second issue significantly fall short of the expected points, and there are differences in the scores of the examination committee members on the second issue, unlike operational skills and other issues related to navigational aids, it is difficult for the examination committee to view that the examination committee members voluntarily given the Plaintiff the marks on such circumstances (if the Plaintiff gains an average of four points in the second issue as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s gains are merely 57.25 points in total, and thus fall short of 60% of the total points in all subjects as stipulated in Article 7(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Pilotage Act).

3) As to the third issue

A) In the setting of questions as an administrative act, the setting commissioner has discretion in a sense that he/she can freely determine what matters are to be set within the permissible scope of statutory provisions, and what terms and answers are to be set up in a language or text form (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du12883, Dec. 22, 2006).

B) According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 7, the plaintiff's assertion can be recognized as having been recorded in a large number of pre-registered words, including NAB and 2 B-dong, and it is difficult to view that the examination committee members in the third issue were abused or abused discretion in the contents and composition of the problem setting, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit.

4) Sub-committee

Ultimately, it is not determined that the Defendant’s failure to pass the instant disposition against the Plaintiff was a deviation or abuse of discretionary power, and thus, the instant disposition is lawful on the same premise.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jae-chul

Judges Kim Jae-sung

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.