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

The plaintiffs are dentists who belong to training institutions or medical institutions, etc. designated by the defendant as training dental hospitals (hereinafter referred to as "training institutions") and have completed the internship and field training course as part of voluntary training (out of the number of dentists' medical professionals).

The Plaintiffs asserted that they are qualified under Article 18(1)1-2 of the Regulations on the Training, Recognition, etc. of Dental Specialists (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules on the Recognition of Qualifications”) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant provision”), and filed an application for issuance of a letter of recognition of dental medical specialist training (hereinafter referred to as the “instant letter of recognition”) with the Defendant pursuant to Article 11(3)1(b) of the Enforcement Rule of the Regulations on the Recognition of Qualifications (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”).

The Defendant refused to issue the instant recognition certificate to the Plaintiffs on the ground that “The instant provision was newly established according to the decision of the Constitutional Court that granted the Plaintiffs an opportunity to take a qualifying examination for dentists at a foreign medical institution, and that it was established on the premise that the Plaintiff does not include a domestic voluntary trainee, such as the Plaintiffs, through gathering dental opinions from the AP Association, academic societies, etc. at the time of its establishment.”

(2) Article 18(1)1 of the Regulations on the Recognition of Qualifications (hereinafter “instant refusal”) provides that “A person who has completed the training under this Decree as a dentist” shall be deemed to fall under “a dentist” under Article 18(1)1 of the same Act, and even if not, the Plaintiffs shall undergo the major course at a foreign medical institution or training institution.