2. All of the claims by Plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3 against the Defendants, and the claims by Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 40% of the portion arising between the Plaintiff 1 and the Defendants shall be borne by Plaintiff 1, and the remainder 60% by the Defendants respectively. The portion arising between Plaintiff 2, Plaintiff 3 and the Defendants shall be borne by Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

According to evidence, the following facts are recognized.

In 2016, Plaintiff 1, which came into effect on November 12, 2015, is an examinee who applied for the College Test (hereinafter referred to as “instant water-related test”) in ○○○○○ and passed a test in the 8 test room (hereinafter referred to as “instant test room”).

In accordance with the Higher Education Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Defendant Republic of Korea is conducting the water-related testing of this case, and Defendant 2 is the first supervisor of the test site of this case.

On the other hand, the Korean Institute of Curriculum Evaluation delegated by the Minister of Education with the authority to execute the instant water-related aptitude test pursuant to the provisions on delegation and entrustment of administrative authority. On March 31, 2015, the Institute of Education prepared and announced a master plan to implement the College College Ability Test in 2016 (hereinafter “master plan for the examination of this case”). According to the said plan, the types of goods prohibited from bringing into the examination site and goods eligible to carry are as follows:

Goods prohibited from bringing in the ○○ Examination Station contained in the main sentence - Goods - With all electronic devices, including portable telephone, digital camera, MP3-ra, electronic pre-camper, camera, electronic calculator, radio, portable media display and visual display, the remaining hours of time for each class of the session, and any function other than the display on the year/month/day/day/day/day, including identification cards, examination marks, personal fences for computers, modified tape, black tape, strawing, sign of view, show of time and time for each class of the session, and any function other than the display on the day/day/day/day/day.

Before the beginning of the first test, Defendant 2, as a supervisor in the instant test room, instructed the examination students to provide information on the prohibited goods to be taken into the test site, along with an explanation about the illegal act and related treatment items, the details of the results of the examination, etc., and instructed Defendant 2 to the effect that “the visibility with the remaining time shall not be taken into the test site,” if the word “the visibility with the remaining time shall not be taken into the test site.”

At the time of ○○, Plaintiff 1 was holding a digital scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic (hereinafter “instant scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic

After that, Plaintiff 1 asked Defendant 2 about “Ipson’s function.” Accordingly, Plaintiff 1 heard the phrase “Ipson to submit a forum” from Defendant 2, submitted the instant visibility to the second supervisor of the said laboratory, and eventually, the test was conducted in a state where he did not possess any visibility (at that time, the test site does not have a separate visibility where students can check time from time to time).

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the plaintiff 1's claim

In light of the above facts, Defendant 2, as a supervisor of the examination and examination of the water testing of this case, has a duty of care to provide clear information on the goods prohibited from carrying the test site and the goods that can carry the test site in accordance with the examination execution plan of this case. However, Defendant 2, as an inspector of the examination of this case, instructed the examination participants of the above examination site, including Plaintiff 1, to the effect that “the visibility that does not carry any function other than the time indication, the remaining time indication, the month/day/day/day/day/day/day/day/day” is possible, although it constitutes an article that is possible to carry the test site, he may not carry the test site, he may cause Plaintiff 1 to submit an answer to the examination site to the effect that “the visibility that does not carry any function other than the time indication, the time indication, the remaining time indication by the school, and the other function cannot be carried without any accurate explanation to the effect that it is impossible to carry the test, thereby making Plaintiff 1’s response to the purport that he could not have any legitimate and legitimate interests in the examination of this case.

In addition, Defendant Republic of Korea should be able to guide and supervise the examination supervisors so that they do not infringe upon the rights or legitimate interests of examinees in conducting the examination of this case, so that they are familiar with the above basic plan for the examination of the examination of the examination of the examination of the examination of the examination of the examination of the examination of the examination of the examination of the examination of the examination of the examination of the examination of the examination of the examination of the examination of this case and the accurate guidance on the items to be carried in the examination of the examination of the examination of this case

Therefore, the defendants jointly do not have a able visibility to carry with them due to the defendants' illegal act, and are responsible for compensating for mental damage caused by the negligence of the water testing of this case. Thus, the water testing of this case is conducted once a year, and the plaintiff 1 who did not have a clock seems to have suffered a considerable anxiety in mind by making it difficult for them to carry with them one time a year as originally expected. However, the water testing of this case was conducted 10 minutes prior to the completion of each test of this case, and the plaintiff 1 was also aware of the fact that he had already been able to see the above contents of the examination of this case after receiving a notice on the same subject of attention as the basic plan for the examination of this case before the examination of this case, so the function included in the above above is merely "the time indication and the function of the remaining time display", and thus, it can be seen that the defendants could have paid consolation money to the defendant 2, who is the inspector of the examination of this case without properly explaining that it would be possible to carry them at the time.

Therefore, the defendants are jointly obligated to pay 5 million won and delay damages to the plaintiff 1.

B. Determination on the claims by Plaintiffs 2 and 3

Although it is deemed that the right or legitimate interest of the examinee on the water test of this case was infringed due to the above circumstances, it is difficult to view that the legal interest of the plaintiff 2 and the plaintiff 3, who is the parent of the plaintiff 1, was infringed by money. Accordingly, the claim for consolation money of this case by the plaintiff 2 and the plaintiff 3 is not accepted.

Judges Kim Yong-woo