In a case where Gap et al. who applied for the College College Ability Test in 2014 filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages against the Korean Institute of Curricula and the State for a final and conclusive judgment by asserting that there was an error in setting problems of global geographical subject, the case holding that the Korean Institute of Curriculum cannot be recognized as tort in the course of setting problems and making a final decision.

In a case where Gap, etc., who applied for the College College College Test in 2014, filed a lawsuit against the Korean Institute of Curricula (hereinafter referred to as the "Institute") to revoke the rating decision of the above subject and filed a claim for damages against the Evaluation Institute and the State, the case holding that, in order to recognize a tort, since the examination committee, examination committee members, examination committee members, and the employees of Evaluation Institute who participated in the decision-making of the issue issue questions have lost objective legitimacy, and there is a substantial reason to assume liability for compensating damages to the Evaluation Institute due to lack of objective legitimacy, it is difficult to see that the error of preparing the issue was found in the related administrative litigation, but it is difficult for the Evaluation Institute to recognize the error of preparing the issue, making the answer, and taking necessary and possible measures as well as subsequent decision-making, and it cannot be deemed that the subsequent remedy procedure has been illegally delayed, it does not constitute a tort in the course of preparing the problem and making the answer.

Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 34 of the Higher Education Act, Article 35 of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act, Article 45(3)2 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority

Attached 1 List of Plaintiffs (Attorneys Kim Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korean Institute of Curriculum and one other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Sang-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

June 15, 2016

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendants: (a) to Plaintiffs 5, 6, 47, 47, 47, 97, 47, 97, 47, 97, 97, 47, 97, 47, 97, 97, 47, 97, 97, 97, 97, 47, 97, 97, 47, 97, 97, 97, 47, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 10, 489, 12, 48, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97

1. Basic facts

(a) Courses of sexual notification of the College Ability Test in 2014;

1) Pursuant to Article 34 of the Higher Education Act, Article 35 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 45(3)2 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority, Defendant Korea Institute of Curriculum Evaluation and Planning (hereinafter “Defendant Institute”) has been entrusted by the Minister of Education for the preparation of questions, printing of questions, marking, and notification of grade, and the formulation and implementation of detailed implementation plans.

2) In November 7, 2013, 2014, 2014, an examinee passed the 600,000 qualifying examination. Of them, 37,684 examinees, including the Plaintiffs, selected the world ties among the subjects of choice in the area of social search and inspection.

3) After the completion of the examination, Defendant IPET issued a correct answer to the water performance test for the year 2014 by making the answer of the question No. 8 of the World Geographical (hereinafter referred to as the “instant issue,” and the content of the issue is as shown in attached Form 2 as indicated in attached Table 2 as “A” and “CCC” fingerprints (hereinafter referred to as “instant fingerprint”), and the Plaintiffs did not state the full answer of the instant issue at two times (hereinafter referred to as “the instant issue”), and the Plaintiffs did not state “(2012)” on the right side of the guidance.

4) In November 2014, some of the examinees who applied for the diversology of the diversity test applied for the objection to the response of the instant issue on the ground that the fingerprints was not consistent with objective facts, and thus, it did not conform with the objective facts. Defendant KET held a working committee for the examination of objection on November 13, 2013 and a review committee on November 18, 2013, and decided that there was no error in the fixed response of the instant issue. On November 27, 2013, the instant issue was decided on the premise that the fixed response of the instant issue was ②, and notified the Plaintiffs of the results of the diversology test in 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

(b) Progress of relevant administrative litigation

1) The 21 persons subject to the instant disposition, including Plaintiffs 49, 58, 89, 56, 29, and 57, etc., filed a lawsuit against Defendant KET and the Minister of Education for revocation of the disposition of revocation of the response to the College College College (hereinafter “related cases”), and argued that the instant fingerprint contains errors in the following matters:

① Although the fingerprints of this case is compared with the total production amount of the European Union and North America Free Trade Agreement, it did not present a comparison point. Since the total production amount itself is a domestic total production, a national total production, or a national gross income, it is ambiguous that the fingerprints of this case itself is a serious error in its fingerprints itself.

② In addition, the fingerprint of this case did not present an opportunity for comparison necessary to compare the total production amount. Considering that the map included in the issue of this case is indicated in the year 2012, the time when comparing the total production amount of the European Union and the North America FTA with the fingerprint of this case shall be 2012 years according to the marking of the year of this case, and that the total production amount of the North America FTA is more than the total production amount of the European Union, so the fingerprint of this case is objectively clearly and clearly written.

③ Taking account of these circumstances, the instant fingerprint is not a fingerprints that can be interpreted in a multi-level manner, but rather an objective shot impression, and there is no answer to the instant issue. Defendant Evaluation Institute set up a matter so that the subject of the average level of examination can not choose a legitimate answer, thereby deviating from and abusing the discretionary power permitted in setting questions for the objective question.

2) On December 16, 2013, the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant Evaluation Institute on the ground that: (i) the Minister of Education did not take the instant disposition; (ii) the Plaintiff’s claim against the Minister of Education regarding the revocation of the instant disposition was deemed to have no standing to file a lawsuit; and (iii) the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Evaluation Institute was dismissed on the ground that, even if the fingerprints was sold or unclear in the following respect, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant Evaluation Institute could not choose the response of the instant issue

In the instant case, “A” fingerprints is clearly correct, and “B” fingerprints and “Divable” fingerprint are clearly written. However, as seen below, the instant fingerprint contains “A” and is not clearly authentic. Therefore, the answer that is clearly correct and clearly nominal, and is excluded from “B,” and “Div,” is only ii) and there are no answers. Therefore, it is difficult for a high school curriculum to see the answer clause 2 as an examinee at the average level of right and wrong fingerprints of “A,” “B,” and “B,” and the answer clause 2 of the instant case.

(C) In light of the fact that: (a) the 2010-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was more produced than the European Union; (b) the average production amount from 2007 to 2012 exceeds the European Union; (c) while the 2010-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was more than the average production amount from 2007 to 2012, the 2007 U.S. Free Trade Agreement was more than the average production amount; (d) the 2011-201-201-201-207-2007-2007-200-2000-200-100-2000-200-2000-200-2000-200-2000-200-200-200-200-200-200-200-200-

Of the issues in this case, “A”, “B”, and “Div” are not fingerprintss that shall be determined right and wrong on the basis of 2012, indicated in the indication of the year in this case, and are merely indicated as “(2012)” under the right and right side of the map among the issues in this case, rather than being indicated in the fingerprints in this case, it cannot be said that the fingerprints in this case should be interpreted as fingerprints to ask for the larger total production amount of a region among the European Union and North America Free Trade Agreements as of 2012.

3) On October 16, 2014, the appellate court (2014Nu40724) appealed 4, including Plaintiff 49 and Plaintiff 89, and the Seoul High Court (2014Nu40724) (hereinafter referred to as the “Seoul High Court”), the appellate court of the related case, did not have any right fingerprints 1, and thus, despite the absence of a correct response to the issue of this case, the defendant Evaluation Institute deemed that the “A” fingerprints and the “C/C” fingerprint are correct, and decided the plaintiffs’ rating in the 2014 veterinary examination on the premise that the correct response to the issue of this case was ②, it was determined that the determination of the plaintiffs’ rating in the 2014 E/S was deviating from or abusing the scope of discretionary power in the dive examination preparation and grading. Accordingly, the first instance judgment revoked the part against the plaintiffs Evaluation Institute and rendered a decision that the disposition of this case was revoked on November 7, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 23, Gap evidence 30-1, 2, Eul evidence 2, 3, 4, 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

The defendant Evaluation Institute neglected to perform its duty of care to prevent any infringement on the rights and legitimate interests of examinees, thereby causing errors in the preparation of the problem of this case and the decision-making of the answer, and it did not recognize the error of setting questions but did not recognize it as an error of setting questions at the time when one year has passed since it committed an illegal act such as recognizing the error of setting questions at the time of the lapse of one year. Therefore, it is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused by such an act.

Meanwhile, according to Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, in cases where a public official or a private person entrusted with public duties causes damage to another person intentionally or by negligence while performing his/her duties, the State is liable to compensate for such damage. Thus, the defendant Republic of Korea is liable to compensate for the plaintiffs' damages caused by illegal acts committed by the defendant Evaluation Institute entrusted by the Minister of Education with the affairs of preparing, grading, giving answers, making decisions, and giving sexual notice. In addition, according to the provisions on delegation and entrustment of administrative authority, the entrusted agency may give necessary instructions or order measures concerning the entrusted affairs to a private entrusted institution (Article 14(1) of the above provision). If it is deemed that the entrusted affairs of the private entrusted affairs are illegal or unjust, the Minister of Education may revoke or suspend such orders (Article 14(3) of the above provision). The Minister of Education, while it is negligent in directing and supervising the defendant Evaluation Institute so as not to infringe upon the rights or legitimate interests of the examinee, thereby infringing the plaintiffs' legitimate interests of the defendant Evaluation Institute.

3. Determination

(a) Standards for liability for damage caused by an error in setting questions for examination;

1) Even if a certain administrative disposition has been cancelled in an appeal litigation after the judgment of res judicata, it cannot be determined that the pertinent administrative disposition was caused by the public official’s intentional or negligent act and constitutes a tort. In light of the public official’s standard, it is reasonable to deem that the public official in charge of the pertinent administrative disposition satisfied the requirements for State compensation liability under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act in a case where it is recognized that the administrative disposition has lost objective legitimacy by neglecting objective duty of care. In such a case, whether the administrative disposition has lost objective legitimacy should be determined by taking into account all the circumstances such as the type and nature of the gains of infringement, the form and reason of the administrative disposition infringing on, the degree of the infringement, the victim’s involvement in the exercise of the administrative disposition, the degree of damages, and the degree of damages.

2) In order to recognize the State’s liability for damages caused by the intention or negligence of the examination committee members who participated in the examination or the examination examination process on the ground that any error in the examination questions and the decision of the successful applicant was found to be illegal, in the examination to be implemented and managed by the State pursuant to Acts and subordinate statutes, whether there is a public interest consideration related to the general public’s interest in conducting the examination as a social system that grants a specific qualification to an individual who has applied for the examination, in addition to the personal interest of granting a specific qualification; whether the State or public officials belonging to the State have properly commissioned external professional examination committee members for the purpose of preparing, determining, and passing the examination questions; whether the commissioned examination committee members have properly commissioned external professional examination committee members according to the requirements and procedures prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes at the time of the examination; whether the examination questions were given to the maximum extent possible; whether the examination questions were given to the applicant in an objective point; whether there were any other opinions in the process of making the examination questions and making the examination questions to the extent possible; whether the examination committee members have been given 3081 or 201.

B. Whether defendant Evaluation Institute's tort was established

1) Facts of recognition

The following facts are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the evidence Nos. 23, 1, 5 through 16, 18, 19, Eul evidence Nos. 20-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 21 and 22, Non-Party 1's testimony and whole purport of the whole pleadings, and contrary to this, Gap evidence No. 25, and Non-Party 2's testimony is not believed.

A) The process for setting problems of this case

(1) The Defendant Evaluation Institute entrusted by the Minister of Education to commission the members preparing the water performance test questions of this case. The members preparing the draft of the examination in the state of blocking from the outside, and the draft of the examination was completed through the review within the area of social search, the individual and common review of the first review committee and the second review committee, the cross-section review, and the final mutual review.

(2) At the time of cross-examination between the territories, one of the examiners presented the opinion that “EU and NAFTA was called a regional economic cooperative, and its terms are appropriate,” and that “after the establishment of NAFTA and there is a clear increase in foreign investors in Mexico.” As a result of the review, the first opinion was expressed as a treaty, organization, or consultative body rather than a regional economic cooperative body, but it is accurate that it is expressed as a treaty, organization, or consultative body rather than a regional economic cooperative body, but it was agreed to maintain the term “regional economic cooperative body” in the textbook and sign language of the world geographic subject, and the second opinion was confirmed that the number of foreign direct investment in Mexico increased after the establishment of the NA FTA as a result of data research. There was no problem other than the above two opinions on the issue of this case in the course of preparation.

B) The process of determining the response of the instant issue

(1) From November 7, 2013 to November 11, 2013, three persons raised six objections to the instant issue, one of which was expressed that there was no error in the instant issue, and the remaining two of which was the opinion that there was an error in the fingerprint of this case.

(2) On November 13, 2013, Defendant Evaluation Institute held an objection by 17 members, including 6 external experts, while attending the meeting. At the above committee, 16 members presented opinions that there is no error in the correct response to the instant issue, and 1 members presented opinions that the fingerprints was erroneous, and the Working Committee on the Examination determined that there was no error in the correct response to the instant issue.

(3) On November 14, 2013, Defendant Evaluation Institute requested consultation on the question of this case, the meaning of indication of this year, and the authenticity of this case’s fingerprints. On November 15, 2013, Defendant Evaluation Institute sent to Defendant Evaluation Institute an opinion that there is no error in the fixed response of the issue of this case, such as the statement in the “ Opinion of the Korean Council” attached Table 3.

(4) On November 18, 2013, Defendant Evaluation Institute held a review committee to determine that there is no error in the response to the instant issue.

C) The result of the global rating of the water-performance test of this case

The fixed answer rate of the instant issue was 49.89%, and the fixed answer rate by grade for the instant issue was 10%, 20%, 91%, 3rd class 80%, 4th class 64%, 5th class 47%, 6th class 29%, 7th class 18%, 8th class 12%, and 9th class 7%.

D) The circumstances after the judgment of the appellate court of the relevant case

(1) On October 31, 2014, the Ministry of Education and the Defendant Evaluation Institute issued a policy to accept the decision without filing a final appeal against the relevant appellate judgment, and to relieve the victimized students by re-calculationing global geographical records.

(2) On November 20, 2014, Defendant Evaluation Institute published the results of global geographical property re-determination, and the adjusted results of global geographical property may be verified and printed on the Defendant Evaluation Institute website from November 20, 2014 to November 26, 2014, but the said period was extended to December 19, 2014. Defendant Evaluation Institute published the fact of global geographical property re-determination and the method of verifying the verification thereof on the “Seoul Newspapers,” which is a daily newspaper on November 28, 2014.

(3) The Ministry of Education, from December 17, 2014, intended the students who can pass an additional examination by re-fixing the results of the student's screening process changed among the students who applied for the screening in 2014 screening for each university.

(4) Accordingly, the Plaintiffs were subject to relief as shown in the attached Table 4’s “Remedial Measures against the Plaintiffs.”

2) Determination

In accordance with the above legal principles, in order for the plaintiffs to be recognized as tort, the examination committee members, members preparing the issue of this case, members preparing the examination committee, and employees of defendant Evaluation Institute to perform objective duty of care, and the 2014th of the plaintiffs' 2014 decision-making of global geographical grade lost objective legitimacy, and there should be substantial reasons for the defendant Evaluation Institute to bear responsibility for compensating losses. The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in full view of the following circumstances revealed in the above facts is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

A) In light of the fact that multiple examiners and examiners commissioned from outside the defendant Evaluation Institute were examined several times at the time of the preparation of the problem of this case, but there was no particular opinion on the fingerprints between the examiners and examiners, 16 members among 17 members of the Evaluation Working Committee on the Objection, present the opinion that there was no problem in the determination of the question of this case at issue, and the judgment of the first instance court of the relevant administrative litigation, it is difficult to view that even though the appellate court of the relevant administrative litigation recognized the error of preparing the problem of this case at issue of this case, it was erroneous to the extent that the decision of preparing the question and making the question of this case would lose objective legitimacy.

B) In addition, even from the procedural point of view, considering the fact that the defendant Evaluation Institute commissioned outside members to make a draft of the examination questions and completed the examination questions through a series of reviews by the review committee members, and that one of the 17 evaluation committee members raised an objection to the determination of the question of this case was above the regular response of the issue of this case, the defendant Evaluation Institute requested consultation from the Korea Association of Economic Geographical Studies and the Korea Association of Environmental Education, and decided that there is no error in the regular response of the problem of this case after the two organizations received opinions from both organizations that there is no error in the correct response of the problem of this case, it is deemed that the defendant Evaluation Institute has taken necessary and possible measures in place with regard to the preparation of the issue of this case and the decision of the correct response of this case.

C) In addition, considering the fact that the experts commissioned by the defendant Evaluation Institute and the tensions of related academic societies expressed their position that there is no problem in the determination of the response of the issue of this case, and that the first instance court ruled that there is no error in the relevant administrative litigation, it is difficult for the defendant Evaluation Institute to expect that the defendant Evaluation Institute would recognize the error of setting problems and take relief measures against the damaged students prior to the judgment of the appellate court of the relevant administrative litigation. In addition, considering the fact that the appellate court of the relevant administrative litigation lost against it, it cannot be deemed that the defendant Evaluation Institute illegally delayed the ex post facto relief procedure, taking into account the fact that it has taken active measures, such as prompt re-determination of the global interest of all examinees who

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case against the defendants on the premise that the defendant Evaluation Institute committed a tort in the course of setting up the issue of this case and deciding the answer of this case are all dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 1] List of Plaintiffs: Omitted

[Attachment 2] The issue of this case: omitted

[Attachment 3] Opinion of the Academy: omitted

[Attachment 4] Remedies against the Plaintiffs: omitted

Judges Cho Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)