1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is that the "Framework Act on Administrative Regulation" in Part 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "Framework Act on Administrative Regulation", the "date of confirmation" in the 4th and the 5th 1 and 2th hereinafter "the 5th 5th 1 and 2th hereinafter "the judgment of the court of first appeal of this case".

Part 7, from Part 3, "A person who has passed the examination" of Part 4 of the same page from the "Public Notice of the Inspection of the Altitude" of Part 7 to "A person who has passed the examination of the Altitude" shall be deemed to be "A person who has passed the examination of the Altitude", the "main part" of Part 8, the "main part" of Part 14 shall be deemed to be "inherent", and the "reasonable" of Part 1 to Part 11.

“Along with the modification as described in paragraph (2) above, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to the changed part of the instant case, the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the facts of the instant recognition and the entire purport of the pleadings, i.e., the purport of the judgment of the final appeal of this case, i.e., ① the provision of this case which limits the eligibility to apply for the heavy-entry examination to persons aged 12 or older, is lawful, and accordingly, the restriction on the application of this case is legitimate, and accordingly, the restriction on the application of this case is also legitimate. Thus, the passing of the heavy-entry examination of this case against the Plaintiff who did not have the eligibility to apply for the heavy-entry examination of this case is merely 9 years old at the time of the application for the heavy-entry examination of this case. However, it seems that there was no problem other than the Plaintiff’s qualification at the time of the disposition, and the issue of taking the Plaintiff’s qualification to apply for the examination of this case seems to be problematic, considering the validity of the restriction on the application of this case's examination of this case, the defect in the first and the second judgment cannot be deemed null and void