The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 23, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for the first examination for the judicial examination on February 55, 2013. On the date of the examination, the Plaintiff was refused to enter the examination room from the examination management officer on the ground that he/she did not enter the examination room before being brought into the examination room at least five minutes prior to the date of the examination.

B. Accordingly, on May 13, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an adjudication on constitutional complaint (2013Hun-Ma341) seeking confirmation of the unconstitutionality of the above rules and the public notice (2013Hun-Ma341) by asserting that the public notice of the first implementation plan for the judicial examination (hereinafter “public notice of this case”) on February 1, 2013, which provides that an applicant who did not enter the examination room by the designated time is unable to apply for the examination, infringed the Plaintiff’s freedom of occupation and the Plaintiff’s right to attend the examination. On April 24, 2014, the Constitutional Court dismissed the decision on the ground that the direct nature of infringement of fundamental rights cannot be recognized with respect to the Enforcement Rule of the Judicial Examination Act, and dismissed the public notice of this case on the ground that it did not violate the principle of statutory reservation and did not infringe the Plaintiff’s freedom to choose an occupation in violation of the principle of excessive prohibition.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 3

2. The plaintiff's assertion is not clear, but the plaintiff's assertion is unconstitutional because it violates the principle of prohibition of comprehensive delegation and the principle of clarity, and the notice of this case is contrary to the principle of excessive prohibition. The defendant's assertion is based on the intention to obstruct entry rooms, the claim for damages based on gross negligence's illegal act, or the enforcement rules of the Judicial Examination Act, which is based on restriction on entry by public officials belonging to the defendant.