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

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in each corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the change of “2.0(1) and (2) of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance as follows; and (b) thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. Parts changed;

"C. Determination"

(1) Article 9 Subparag. 2 of the former Veterinarians Act (amended by Act No. 5953, Mar. 31, 1999; hereinafter “former Act”) added the requirements of “acquisition of a veterinarian’s license” to “a person who has majored in veterinary science at a foreign university recognized by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry (Article 9 Subparag. 2) and a person who has obtained a veterinarian’s license in a foreign country (Article 9 Subparag. 3). Article 9 Subparag. 2 of the former Veterinarians Act (amended by Act No. 5953, Mar. 31, 1999; hereinafter “Revised Act”) amended to grant a veterinarian’s license to “a person who has graduated from a university specializing in veterinary science in a foreign country (including veterinary department at a college with veterinary science) and obtained a veterinarian’s license in a foreign country” in addition to the requirements of “a person who has obtained a bachelor’s license in a foreign university.” The above amended provisions strengthened the requirements of “acquisition of a veterinarian’s license in a foreign country”.

Accordingly, after January 1, 2002, the amended Act was enforced on January 1, 2002, the applicant for the national examination for veterinarian was limited to the applicant for the national examination for veterinarian in a foreign university recognized by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. In order to protect the right to learn it, Article 4 (4) of the Addenda of the Act No. 5953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Addenda provision of this case") was newly established on December 31, 2001, while the amended Act was amended by Act No. 6570 on December 31, 201, and amended by Act No. 6570 on December 31, 200, to guarantee the applicant for the examination for veterinarian.

However, in accordance with the previous provisions, the supplementary provision of this case was newly established in the purport that a person who was enrolled in a medical college in a foreign country with the trust of acquiring the qualification to take a national examination for veterinarian in the future after graduating from a medical college and obtaining a multiple bachelor’s degree, and intends to protect the right to obtain the license of a person who was enrolled in a foreign medical college. Even according to the literal interpretation, the term “before December 31, 2001” refers to the past including December 31, 2001. Thus, it cannot be narrowly interpreted that a person who was enrolled in a medical department before December 31, 201 should be deemed to be subject to the application of subparagraph 2-7 of this case, and subparagraph 3 of subparagraph 2-7, and subparagraph 3 shall be deemed to be a person who was enrolled in a medical college in a foreign country’s college, and thus, the Plaintiff constitutes a person who was enrolled in a medical college in a foreign country’s college before December 31, 201.

(2) Meanwhile, since the eligibility for application of a person falling under the supplementary clause of this case is based on the previous provision, the plaintiff will examine whether the plaintiff satisfies the eligibility for application under Article 9 subparagraph 2 of the previous provision before the amendment.

Article 9 Subparag. 2 of the former Act provides that “A person who obtained a bachelor’s degree from a foreign university, majoring in veterinary science.” The number of bachelor’s degrees from a university, majored in veterinary science, is general. It does not seem that legislation was made, including such exceptional cases, at a university, other than the pertinent university, with a bachelor’s degree for the period of 0 months prior to the amendment. In order to protect the basic rights of those who obtained a veterinarian’s national examination from a foreign university, which is recognized by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry to have obtained a bachelor’s degree from a foreign university, from a foreign university, from a foreign university, for the period of 0 months prior to the enforcement of the Act. The Plaintiff appears to have obtained a bachelor’s degree from a foreign university, with a major in veterinary science to a foreign university, from a foreign university, from a foreign university, to a foreign university with a major in veterinary science with a minimum of 0-year bachelor’s degree from a foreign university with a major in veterinary science.” The above provision provides that “a person who obtained a bachelor’s degree from a foreign university or college with a major in veterinary science can be recognized.”

Therefore, the disposition of this case which invalidated the passing of the veterinarian national examination shall be lawful for the plaintiff who did not meet the qualification for application under Article 9 subparagraph 2 of the Act before the amendment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Ahn Young-chul (Presiding Judge)