(a) Whether recognition of qualification as a certified judicial scrivener should be obtained from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on duties performance capabilities, etc. other than prescribed work experience (affirmative);

B. Whether the recognition of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court under Article 4(1)1 of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act is necessary in a case where a person who had been qualified as a certified judicial scrivener under the former Act (amended by Act No. 3828, May 12, 1986) applies for the recognition of a certified judicial scrivener under Article 4(1)1 of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act

(c) The case holding that a disposition not to recognize a certified judicial scrivener's qualification is lawful for a person who, without justifiable grounds, has been notified of his/her legal knowledge and ability necessary for performing his/her duties.

(a) If a person intends to be recognized as a certified judicial scrivener pursuant to subparagraph 1 of Article 4 of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act, he shall obtain the recognition of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on the fact that he has legal knowledge and ability necessary for performing the affairs of a certified judicial scrivener

B. Even if a person is qualified as a judicial secretary in accordance with the former Judicial Police Act (amended by Act No. 3828, May 12, 1986), if the prosecutor's office applied for authorization from the chief of the competent district court and applied for approval from the chief of the competent district court (see Article 4 (1) 1 of the Addenda of Act No. 3828), if the person applies for the recognition of qualification as a judicial scrivener under Article 4 (1) 1 of the current Certified Judicial Scriveners Act, it shall be recognized by the chief of the Supreme Court.

(c) The case holding that a disposition not to recognize a certified judicial scrivener qualification is lawful for a person who, without justifiable grounds, has been notified of his/her legal knowledge and ability necessary for performing his/her duties.

Articles 4(1)1 and 4(2) of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act

Plaintiff

The Minister of Court Administration

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu12713 delivered on October 30, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 4 (1) 1 of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act provides that "any person who has served as a senior clerk or a senior prosecutor or a senior prosecutor or a senior prosecutor or a higher in a court, Constitutional Court, or prosecutor's office for not less than seven years, or who is recognized by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as having legal knowledge and ability necessary to perform the affairs of a certified judicial scrivener for not less than five years" shall be qualified as a certified judicial scrivener. Thus, if he/she intends to be recognized as a certified judicial scrivener pursuant to this provision, he/she shall be interpreted as having legal knowledge and ability necessary to perform the affairs of a certified judicial scrivener in addition to having prescribed experience.

In addition, even if the plaintiff was eligible to become a secretary at the prosecutor's office for more than five years from April 21, 1980, in accordance with the judicial justice prior to the amendment by Act No. 3828, May 12, 1986, which was in force at that time, insofar as the plaintiff applied for authorization from the chief of the district court at that time and did not obtain authorization from the chief of the district court at that time (see Addenda 2, e.g., Article 3828), and Article 4 (1) 1 of the current Certified Judicial Scriveners Act, the plaintiff who applied for recognition of qualification as a certified judicial scrivener under Article 4 (1) 1

In addition, if it is necessary to determine whether the applicant's career under Article 4 (1) 1 of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act is recognized as having legal knowledge and ability necessary to perform the duties of a certified judicial scrivener, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court may examine such legal knowledge and its application ability in a reasonable manner. Thus, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, such as family litigation, without conducting the above examination to the person who was in the position of secretary, recognized under Article 4 (1) 1 of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act without conducting such examination, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court may order the plaintiff to conduct such examination in order to promote the appropriateness of recognition of qualification as a certified judicial scrivener under Article 4 of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, such examination cannot be deemed to violate the principle of equality guaranteed by the Constitution, equal opportunity, or freedom of occupation selection.

As determined by the court below, although the facts are recognized as necessary to deliberate on whether the Certified Judicial Scriveners Qualification Deliberation Committee has legal knowledge and ability necessary to perform the duties of a certified judicial scrivener and notified the plaintiff of such fact, if the plaintiff submitted an objection to the examination and submitted arms, and the plaintiff did not comply with the examination without justifiable grounds, if the Certified Judicial Scriveners Qualification Deliberation Committee decided that the plaintiff has no legal knowledge and ability necessary to perform the duties of a certified judicial scrivener, it cannot be said that the notification of the defendant to the plaintiff by the Minister of National Court Administration of the fact that he did not recognize the qualification of a certified judicial scrivener under Article 4 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Qualification Deliberation Committee is illegal. The decision of the court below that the decision of the court below is just, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law in violation of the law or the Constitution, such as incomplete deliberation, error in the rules of evidence, omission of judgment, reason, and scenario, etc. which affected the judgment, and there is no ground for all the arguments.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)