2012Nu1807 Disposition Revocation of Failure to pass an examination for appointment of teachers

o

Attorney OO00

Jeonnam-do Superintendent of Education

Attorney KimO-O

Gwangju District Court Decision 2012Guhap1600 Decided November 29, 2012

May 9, 2013

May 30, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's judgment of January 27, 2012 against the plaintiff shall also be revoked by Jeonrado in 2012.

A disposition of failure to pass a competitive examination for selecting candidates for appointment of teachers of public and private middle schools shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Publication of the defendant's implementation plan for selecting candidates for appointment and announcement of successful candidates in the second place;

(1) On September 16, 2011, the Defendant publicly announced an implementation plan for a competitive examination for appointment of teachers of public and private secondary schools (including public health, nutrition, specialized counseling, and special school teachers) (hereinafter “instant appointment examination”) in 2012 as the Seoul-do Office of Education Notice No. 2011-362, Sept. 16, 201. The main contents of the appointment examination for special teachers of public and private secondary schools are as follows.

(2) The Plaintiff applied for the instant special (second, etc.) subject during the instant appointment examination, and the Defendant, in accordance with the foregoing public notice, conducted the first examination on October 22, 201; conducted the second examination on November 26, 201; and on December 21, 2011, 21, including the Plaintiff (pass number: 00), published 21 persons including the Plaintiff (pass number: 00) as successful applicants for the instant appointment examination (second, etc.) subject under Article 2011-834 of the Notice of the Seoul-do Office of Education.

(b) Remarked results of the Korean Institute of Curriculum Evaluation and Planning, and the defendant's further passing notice on 000;

(1) On the other hand, the 16th Office of Education jointly constituted the 16th Office of Education of each City/Do Joint Management Council for the new appointment of middle school teachers. On September 201, the said Council concluded a contract on the entrustment of the 1, 2, 3rd office of education with regard to the appointment of new candidates for middle school teachers from September 30, 201 to June 30, 201, with regard to the designation of new candidates for appointment of middle school teachers from September 30, 201 to June 30, 201.

(2) The Korean Institute of Curriculum Evaluation and Planning shall comply with the above business trust agreement and shall begin on December 2, 201 and end on the 10th of the same month.

Until December 14, 201, the second examination marking was conducted, and the results of the said grading was notified to each City/Do on December 14, 201, and the Busan Metropolitan Office of Education requested a second examination marking to the Korea Institute of Education on December 19, 2011, and on December 24, 201, the Busan Metropolitan City Office of Education requested a second examination marking to the Korea Institute of Education on the 24th of the same month. Accordingly, the Korea Institute of Curricula conducted a second examination to examine the results of the second examination marking of the Busan Metropolitan Office of Education on 000,00, 000, and 000, 100, etc. applied for the examination for the appointment of teachers among the Office of Education in Busan Metropolitan City Office of Education among the Busan Metropolitan City Office of Education on the 1st answer, respectively.

(3) As a result of the above transfer, the Korean Institute of Curricula stated 000 (the examination number 000) applied for the special (second) subject among the appointment examination of this case, in the first place of the answer No. 1 at the time of this second examination, and confirmed the fact that the second text of this paragraph was processed as zero points by submitting two copies of the answer sheet No. 2 at the time of answer No. 1 at the second place of paragraph 2 at the time of blank and submitting two copies of the answer sheet No. 2 at the time of this case, and also found five cases similar to the above 00 items throughout the country.

(4) On December 26, 201, the Korean Institute of Curriculum conducted an additional grading team on December 26, 2012, by organizing six proposals found in the above checkup with the major in the original and external grading committee. The result of the said 000 notice of the result of the second written test to the Defendant on December 28, 2011, without treating the points in the said 000 as zero points, deeming the points in the second written test as the answer in the second written text. The second written test score was modified from the previous 51.67 to 63.33 points, and the Korean Institute of Curriculum Evaluation and Planning notified the Defendant of the result.

Along with the fact that 00 points are higher than 60.67, the successful applicants for the second examination, for which 00 points are not given, the fact that 60.67 are higher, and the decision of 00 on December 28, 201 as additional successful applicants was made, and notified 00 of the fact of additional successful applicants by telephone and registered mail (hereinafter referred to as "additional successful applicants").

C. Disqualified disposition against the plaintiff

(1) On January 12, 2012, the Plaintiff and 000 applied for the third examination implemented on the 13th day of the same month. The result of the third examination marking 000 was 97 points and the Plaintiff entered 95.33 points and all the second and third examination points were 160.33 points. However, although the third examination points were the same as the total number of the 160.33 points, the third examination points with higher 00 points were determined in the last order than the Plaintiff.

(2) Accordingly, on January 27, 2012, the Defendant excluded the Plaintiff from the process of publicly announcing 16 persons, including o on 27 January 2012 as the final successful applicants of the subject of the appointment examination of this case (including 14 general persons, 2 persons with disabilities) and rendered a non-compliance disposition against the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant non-compliance disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] fact-finding, Gap’s evidence 1 through 3, Eul’s evidence 1 through 5, and 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the fact-finding results on the Korea Institute of Curriculum Evaluation of the Party’s Curriculum, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

2. Whether the instant failure disposition is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The existence of grounds for invalidation of the instant disposition (A) is that the instant disposition was conducted without establishing and publicly announcing the relevant disposition standards, and is in violation of Article 20 of the Administrative Procedures Act, and is in violation of Article 24 of the Administrative Procedures Act and Article 18 of the Rules on Examination for Selection of Candidates for Public Educational Officials providing that the decision of passing the examination should be publicly announced, and is null and void in violation of Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act, as well as Article 23(1) of the said Rules. (B) Furthermore, even if the Defendant was able to give normal grading prior to the announcement of the secondary successful candidate, the Defendant requested the Korean Curriculum Evaluation Institute for additional grading for a specific person after the announcement of the said successful candidate. (2) The Korean Curriculum Evaluation Institute grants a total of 00 points more than 50 points more than 61.67 points more than 10 points more than 50 points more than 10 points more than 10 points more than 11.66 points more than the remaining 10 points more than 10 points more than 10 points.

(2) The existence of other illegal grounds as to the disposition of passing the additional disposition of this case

Although the defendant set the number of successful examinees at 1.5 times the scheduled number of successful examinees in the notice of the appointment examination of this case, 000 was violated the above public notice, and it is against the principle of equality because it is a discrimination against those who faithfully implemented the written answer, and remedying the successful examinees wrong in preparing the written answer compared to the examinees who faithfully implemented the written answer, and it is not worth protecting as one's gross negligence. However, it would be 00 as if it damages the fairness of the examination, thereby causing enormous damages to the plaintiff. Thus, the additional pass disposition of this case is unlawful in violation of the principle of proportionality. (3) The illegality of the failure disposition of this case (A) since the additional pass disposition of this case is conducted in a series of stages to achieve the same administrative purpose in the final selection of successful examinees, and thus, it should be deemed that the above additional pass disposition of this case is invalid or unlawful on the premise that it causes a single legal effect.

(B) Even if the instant disposition cannot be deemed unlawful and invalid, the instant disposition is beyond the bounds of the Defendant’s discretion, since the Defendant did not take appropriate measures to prevent the occurrence of a sound victim while rendering the instant disposition of passing the instant additional test, despite the fact that the competition rate is high and the number of successful applicants in the secondary examination increases, the final success rate of the final successful applicants, despite the increase of the number of successful applicants in the secondary examination.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Whether there exists grounds for invalidation or revocation of the instant additional disposition (A) disposition standards, and whether the instant additional disposition violates the duty of publication

1) Article 20(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that "the administrative agency shall determine and publicly announce the necessary disposition standards so as to the extent possible in light of the nature of the disposition concerned." Since the establishment and public announcement system of such disposition standards aims to prevent arbitrary exercise of authority by the administrative agency and ensure transparency and predictability in administration, administrative agencies are obligated to establish and publicly announce the disposition standards as much as possible as possible (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du5148, Aug. 25, 201). Meanwhile, Article 20 of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that the public announcement of the disposition standards under Article 20(2) provides that where the nature of the disposition concerned is considerably difficult in light of the nature of the disposition concerned or where there are reasonable grounds to be deemed to significantly undermine the public safety and welfare, it may not be made public, and thus, it may be made flexibly in consideration of individual cases by granting the administrative agency discretion within a certain scope, and thus, it may be made public within the scope of 208Du2084, supra.

2) As to the instant case, the following circumstances revealed in the aforementioned facts, namely, ① the Defendant selected 1.5 times the number of persons to be selected in order from persons with higher scores than the second examination results and additional points in the instant appointment examination, and the second examination announcement was conducted on December 21, 201, and only announced that the passing date for each subject is scheduled to be disclosed on the homepage of the Office of Education before and after the second examination announcement, and the Defendant failed to make an explicit announcement on whether to pass the additional decision, standards and procedures after the second examination announcement, ② Although the Defendant announced that it was difficult for them to verify the passing date of the examination or other matters that were not announced, it was difficult for them to ascertain the passing date of the said additional examination or that it was difficult to determine the possibility of passing the additional examination or other matters that were recorded in the 20th examination marking date, and thus, it was difficult to determine the possibility of passing the additional examination or other matters to be published on the basis of the nature of the additional examination marking date.

In full view of the fact that the establishment and publication of the criteria in advance seems to be reasonable in light of the fairness and transparency of the selection of successful applicants, the Defendant did not set the additional criteria in this case, or even if it was established and announced, the contents of the additional criteria are too abstract and comprehensive, and thus, it does not appear that the content of the announcement can be deemed that the other party to the disposition and interested parties, etc. can have a minimum predictability as to whether they passed the additional criteria or the contents thereof. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant violated the duty to establish and publish the additional criteria in this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this is reasonable.

1) Whether Article 24 of the Administrative Procedures Act is violated

Article 24 (1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that "when an administrative agency takes a disposition, it shall be in writing, except as otherwise provided in other Acts and subordinate statutes, etc., and in the case of an electronic document, it shall be subject to the consent of the parties concerned, etc.: Provided, That where it is necessary to process it promptly or where a case is minor, it may be done orally or by other means: Provided, That the defendant shall be notified of the points to be modified on December 28, 201 by the Korean Education Institute and the Fixed Evaluation Institute, and immediately notify the defendant of the fact that he was notified of the points to 00 by telephone and registered mail, not document, and the defendant shall be notified of the fact that the above 00 passed the second examination promptly to 00 so that the third examination can be prepared. Thus, the defendant's additional pass disposition in this case constitutes "the case where it is necessary to process it promptly" as provided in the proviso of Article 24 (1) of the Administrative Procedures Act, which is not a document, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion as to this is without merit.

Article 18 of the Rules on the Examination for Selection of Candidates for Public Educational Officials (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of this case") provides that the examination agency shall make a public notice without delay when a candidate has passed the examination. In other words, the following circumstances revealed by the above facts: ① The public notice system for the selection of successful candidates provides that the purpose of securing transparency and legal stability in administration as well as in securing the efficiency of administration by dealing with the pass disposition and the pass pass disposition en bloc; ② the public notice system for the selection of successful candidates is to facilitate objection against the pass; ② the above regulations are to be made public notice without the body; ② the above regulations are interpreted as an illegal disposition in violation of the above regulations in case of the selection of successful candidates without the public notice by the examination agency which is an administrative agency; ③ the first examination applicant and the final examination applicant are divided in relation to the decision of successful candidates in Article 17; ② Article 18 of the Rules provides that the person who has passed the examination without the above classification is "when the person has passed the final examination" as well as Article 18 of the above.

In full view of the fact that: (a) it is natural to view that the appointment examination of this case includes the successful applicants for the secondary examination, and (b) the Defendant has publicly announced all the official announcements related to the appointment examination of this case on the website of the Jeonnam-do Office of Education; and (c) despite the fact that the aforementioned publication on the website does not include any specific time and effort, there is no reasonable ground for the Defendant to choose an individual notification method, not the public announcement, in violation of the above provision, only in the case of passing the additional examination of this case; and (d) the Defendant’s disposition of passing the additional examination of this case by individual notification method, not the public announcement, violates Article 18 of the Rules of this case;

(C) Whether Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act is violated

Article 23 (1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that " When an administrative agency takes a disposition, it shall present the basis and reasons for the disposition to the party", and Article 2 (4) of the same Act provides that "the party directly to the disposition of the administrative agency" shall be "the party directly to the disposition". In full view of the whole purport of the argument in subparagraph 4-1 and 2 of Eul, the defendant, while taking a disposition of additional 00 to the plaintiff, presented the basis and reasons for the above disposition to "the decision of 00 to the successful applicant" due to the notice of correction of the result of the second examination marking of the Korean Institute of Curriculum Evaluation and Evaluation of Curriculum Evaluation and Evaluation," which is "the decision of 00 to the successful applicant of the special (middle)" due to the notice of correction of the result of the second examination marking of the Korean Institute of Curriculum Evaluation and Evaluation, as long as the plaintiff cannot be deemed as the party directly to the disposition of additional , it is not necessary to present the grounds and reasons for the additional disposition to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion about the additional disposition cannot be justified.

1) The case holding that it is unlawful for the Korean office of education to verify the fact that the new 2nd examination papers were not conducted for the purpose of preparing the new 0th examination papers or the new 2nd examination papers, or that the new 2nd examination papers were conducted for the purpose of preparing additional 0th examination papers or 0th examination papers, and that the additional 1th examination papers or 2th examination papers were not conducted for the purpose of keeping the original 2nd examination papers or 0th examination papers, and that the additional 1th examination papers or 2th examination papers were not conducted for the purpose of keeping the original 0th examination papers or 0th examination papers, and that the additional 2th examination papers or 2th examination papers were not conducted for the purpose of keeping the original 0th examination papers or 0th examination papers, and that the additional 2nd examination papers or 3th examination papers were not conducted for the purpose of keeping the original 2nd examination papers or 0th examination papers.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion as to this is without merit. (e) Whether it is illegal to select more than the number of successful examinees in the second examination publicly announced as follows: 14 of the appointment examination of this case; 1.5 of the number of successful examinees in the second examination of this case; and 21 of the number of successful examinees in the second examination of this case. On December 21, 201, the defendant publicly announced the number of successful examinees in the second examination of this case as 1.5 times the number of successful examinees in the second examination of this case. The defendant additionally passed the second examination of 00 on December 28, 201 and eventually decided 22 of the number of successful examinees. Thus, it is clear that the number of successful examinees in the second examination of this case publicly announced as above exceeds the number of prospective successful examinees in the second examination of this case.

2) However, the selection of successful examinees, etc. shall be deemed unlawful only when the defendant's autonomous decision is in violation of the principle of propriety and objective legitimacy, or when it is judged that the defendant considerably unreasonable or unjustifiable in light of the purpose of the examination, entrance screening, and the purport of the related Acts and subordinate statutes, etc. In other words, the defendant's decision to pass the second examination in the implementation plan of the appointment examination of this case is 'the decision to pass the examination of this case 'the decision to pass the examination of this case 'the decision to pass the examination of this case 'the decision to pass the second examination 'the decision to pass the examination 'the decision to pass the examination of this case 'the decision to pass the examination of this case 'the decision to pass the examination of this case ' 'the decision to pass the examination of this case 'the number of successful applicants' shall be 20 times or less according to the guidelines for the final decision to pass the examination of this case 'the decision to pass the examination of this case 's 1.5 times or more than the original decision to pass the examination of this case 200.

On the other hand, the following circumstances, i.e., additional marking on 000, which can be seen by comprehensively considering the overall purport of each of the above evidence, were conducted by the Korean Institute of Curriculum Evaluation and Planning based on the results of the inspection of transfer on the omission of marking between the offices of education nationwide in order to maintain equity between the offices of education, and thus, the above additional marking cannot be deemed as a special benefit for 000.

The plaintiff's error in preparing the answer letter was true. However, the Korean Institute of Education conducted additional 00 if it erred in preparing the answer letter as above since 2009, and there is no particular defect in marking standards, procedures and marking members, etc. ③ The decision of passing the secondary examination of this case is announced to determine the additional 63.33 points above 60.67 points, which are the successful candidates of the above examination. Thus, it is hard to see that the additional 300 points are inconsistent with the above criteria for deciding the successful candidates, and that the additional 30 points are found to be unreasonable if it is found that the additional 300 points are found to have not passed the examination of this case, and that the additional 30 points are not inconsistent with the above criteria for passing the examination of this case, and that the additional 300 points are not subject to any change in the status of the successful applicants of the second examination of this case. The plaintiff's additional 200 points are not subject to any reasonable ground for passing the examination of this case.

1) In order for a defective administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, it must be objectively apparent that the defect is a serious violation of an essential part of the law, and objectively apparent. In determining whether the defect is grave and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law should be examined from a teleological perspective, and at the same time, reasonable consideration should be given on the specificity of the specific case itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu4615, Jul. 11, 1995; Supreme Court Decision 2000Du4057, Feb. 8, 2002).

2) We examine the instant case, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, i.e., the instant disposition: (a) the Defendant received a notice of the modification of the results of grading on December 28, 201, which was after the date of the announcement of the second examination for the appointment of the Plaintiff; and (b) there was a need to promptly inform the Defendant of the further passing on the same date; (c) the selection of a successful applicant based on additional marking on the notice of the second examination answer of the Korean Institute of Curricula constitutes exceptional cases; and (c) it seems difficult at the time to predict the fact that the additional marking of the Korean Institute of Education could not affect the final successful applicant’s decision due to the additional passing on the 000, as seen earlier; (c) the additional marking of the Korean Institute of Education is conducted through an examination of transfer on the National Office of Education; and (d) the Plaintiff’s additional disposition cannot be deemed as null and void due to the lack of the Plaintiff’s procedural passing on the examination of the instant case.

(2) Whether the instant failure disposition is unlawful

(A) Whether the defects of the instant disposition are succeeded to the instant disposition. 1) Where the subsequent disposition and the subsequent disposition are conducted in a series of procedures to achieve the identical administrative purpose, and where a single legal effect is generated by combining each other, if the prior disposition and the subsequent disposition are illegal, it shall not be deemed that the defects are significant and obvious, and thus, there is no dispute over the validity of the subsequent disposition, and even if there is no defect in the subsequent disposition itself, it shall be deemed that the subsequent disposition and the subsequent disposition are illegal as they are the grounds for filing a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the subsequent disposition and thus are illegal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu4567, Feb. 9, 193). However, where the subsequent disposition are based on the premise of the prior disposition and the prior disposition are separate legal effects, and where the prior disposition and the prior disposition have no dispute over whether it has already been effective, it shall not be deemed that the prior disposition and thus, it cannot be asserted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20120Da2014, etc.).

On the other hand, even if the prior disposition is separate from the subsequent disposition based on it for the purpose of independent legal effect, it is difficult to see that the prior disposition was known of the content of the prior disposition, where it is difficult to anticipate the failure or imbalance of the prior disposition, or where specific disadvantages appear in reality due to the subsequent subsequent disposition, etc., it is common to find the path for the relief of rights, and thus, in a case where it can be deemed that the prior disposition imposes an unreasonable duty of care to ask for consideration and correction as to whether it was erroneous or not, in a case where it can be seen that the prior disposition imposes an unreasonable duty of care, to prevent the allegation of illegality of the prior disposition from claiming for disadvantage exceeding the tolerance limit in the subsequent disposition, and in a case where it does not comply with the constitutional ideology such as the right of citizens to trial, it can be argued that the illegality itself as the administrative disposition subject to the administrative litigation, and based on this, in an administrative litigation seeking the cancellation of the subsequent disposition, the illegality of the prior disposition can be asserted as an independent ground for illegality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du137.

2) The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the Defendant’s return to the instant case and comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, namely, ① the purpose of the instant additional passing disposition against the Plaintiff 00 is to provide the Plaintiff with an opportunity to take the said secondary passing examination at the same time as the Defendant passes the said secondary passing examination at the instant appointment examination. On the other hand, the Defendant’s failure disposition against the Plaintiff is aimed at making the Plaintiff final failure in the said examination; ② the other party to the instant pass disposition is 000, whereas the other party to the instant pass disposition is 00, whereas the other party to the instant pass disposition is mutually different from the Plaintiff, ③ the time when the Plaintiff knew or could have known that the instant additional passing disposition against the Plaintiff 00 was issued on the date of the final successful passing of the appointment examination.

1. The above disposition appears to have been immediately after December 28, 201. Since the above disposition was passed by approximately one month from December 28, 201, the plaintiff seems to have had sufficient time to dispute the illegality of the disposition of the additional disposition of this case. ④ The disposition of the additional disposition of this case was issued according to the legitimate additional marking result of the Korean Curriculum Epic. It is difficult to find substantive defects in the process. Although the above disposition is procedural defect, it cannot be evaluated that the degree of defects is serious. ⑤ The plaintiff's total scores of the third and third examinations were the same, but the third examination scores were lower than the above 00, and the third examination passing criteria for the treatment, and the plaintiff's failure to pass the examination can not be viewed as unlawful since the plaintiff's failure to pass the examination of this case can not be viewed as a result of the plaintiff's failure to pass the examination of this case, and the plaintiff's failure to pass the examination of this case's additional disposition of this case can not be viewed as an unlawful disposition of this case. The plaintiff's failure to pass the above disposition of this case's prior disposition cannot be viewed as unlawful.

(B) Whether the instant failure disposition deviates from or abused the discretionary power

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., the overall purport of oral arguments, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the following circumstances, i.e., ① the increase in the number of successful applicants in the second examination due to the disposition of passing the additional test in this case; however, the above additional test was possible to obtain points that 00 pass the second examination in accordance with legitimate procedures, and in this case, the defendant's additional test in this case seems to have been reasonable in terms of the principle of appointment of public educational officials based on the ability principle or equity; ② although there were some procedural defects in the process of the disposition of passing the additional test in this case, even if there were no defects in the above procedure, it seems difficult to view the plaintiff's failure to pass the examination in this case and the possibility of changing the plaintiff's status. ③ The plaintiff's failure to pass the examination in this case was lower than that of the plaintiff's second and third examination subjects, and the plaintiff's additional test score in this case's total lack of legitimacy, and the result of the examination in this case's final decision of passing the 300th test.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Soldiers (Presiding Judge)

Freeboard

Maternus

Relevant statutes

former Public Educational Officials Act (Amended by Act No. 11066, Sep. 30, 2011)

The appointment of public educational officials shall be the qualifications, results of retraining, performance, other duties, etc.

(2) A teacher qualified and all persons who desire to be appointed as a teacher.

The opportunity for appointment shall be guaranteed.

Necessary

Ad:

Written Examination,

(2) In the result of the written examination referred to in paragraph (1), a candidate for superior teachers shall be selected.

The evaluation elements deemed necessary, such as the results during the school period, may be added by converting them into points.

section 1.

(3) Matters necessary for conducting an open screening process shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Education.

A person shall be appointed.

The Rules on the Competitive Examination for Candidates for Public Educational Officials (Act No. 107, Jun. 22, 201)

Test

conversion

(4) In determining successful examinees pursuant to paragraph (3), if any, the following order shall be followed:

The determination shall be determined.

1. A person with a high result of the third examination;

2. A person who has completed military service;

3. A person meeting the standards determined by the examination implementing agency;

Article 18 (Public Notice of Successful Applicants) Testing Agency shall, without delay, give public notice when the Successful Applicants are determined.

section 23.

Administrative Procedures Act (Amended by Act No. 11498, Oct. 22, 2012)

Article 2 (Definitions) The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

4. The term “parties, etc.” means directly counter parties to the disposition of administrative agencies, and administrative agencies;

An interested person who is requested to participate in administrative procedures ex officio or upon request by the public office.

Article 20 (Establishment and Public Announcement of Criteria for Disposition) (1) Administrative agencies shall make necessary criteria for disposition in nature of the dispositions concerned.

in the light of the standards for disposition, such standards shall be determined and publicly announced as specifically as possible.

The same shall also apply in the case.

(2) Public announcement of the disposition standards under paragraph (1) is considerably difficult due to the nature of the relevant disposition.

reasonable grounds to believe that it is substantially public;

(3) Interpretation already made public; or

under this chapter.

of this section.

In cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs,

must be presented.

1. In case of a disposition fully accepts the contents of the applications; and

2. The dispositions or minor dispositions in which the parties concerned are clearly aware of the reasons therefor.

3. In cases of emergency.

(2) In cases under paragraph (1) 2 and 3 above, administrative agencies shall, if requested by the parties concerned after the dispositions are made.

and the reasons shall be presented.

Article 24 (Method of Dispositions) (1) When administrative agencies make dispositions, special provisions in other Acts and subordinate statutes shall be applied.

A person shall be appointed.

in this case, if requested by a party, the disposition shall be taken without delay.

one document must be given.

·