[1] Whether the examination implementer or the person in charge of screening procedure is discretionary matters in the examination implementer or the person in charge of screening procedure (affirmative) and the standard for determining the illegality of preparing and allocating points in the College Ability Test and each university admission process, decision of answers, method of grading or interview, detailed method and criteria for calculating points, etc.

[2] The case holding that the above screening method or standard does not constitute a case where the university's discretionary power on admission screening is not abused or abused, in a case where a university's occasional general screening is conducted, and where the university applied the above different formula by distinguishing the applicants of grade 2 or higher from the applicants of grade 2 or below and the applicants of grade 2 or below from the reflection of the curriculum among the student living records, and did not disclose the numerical value used by some formula, and did not publicly announce the assessment items, evaluation methods, allocation methods, etc. in advance

[1] Not only the College Ability Test in charge of the state's implementation and management pursuant to the law, but also the questions and points to be given, decision-making, marking or interview method, detailed calculation method and standard for points, successful applicants' selection, etc. are, in principle, assigned to the decision-making of the test executor's own policy or autonomous decision-making by the person in charge of screening procedure. However, it shall be deemed unlawful only where the method or standard violates the Constitution or laws or loses excessive rationality and objective legitimacy, or where it is determined that the method or standard was considerably unreasonable or unreasonable in light of the purpose of examination or entrance screening, and the purpose of the examination or entrance screening, or where it is determined that the discretionary authority was abused

[2] In a case where a university or college selects 90% of the curriculum area among the school life records at an occasional general screening phase for the selection of students, and 15 to 17 times of the number of applicants reflecting 10% of the comparison and domains, and applied different formula in the curriculum area by distinguishing the applicants from the applicants of grade 2 or higher and those of grade 2 or below, and did not disclose the numerical value used as some formula, the case holding that different formula in the comparison and reflection in the curriculum area is not applied to the applicants of grade 1, but applied the same to all applicants, and thus, it cannot be deemed unreasonable or unreasonable in light of the fact that the examination method applied according to the classification in the curriculum area is applied to the degree of grade 2 or higher, and that it cannot be deemed that the standard for selecting applicants of grade 2 or higher is unreasonable or unreasonable in light of the fact that the standard for selecting applicants of grade 2 or higher is unreasonable or unreasonable in light of the purpose of the above, and that it is difficult to see that the standard for selecting applicants of grade 2 or lower, etc.

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 34(1) and (2) of the Higher Education Act, Article 31(1) and (2), and Article 34 of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 34(1) and (2) of the Higher Education Act, Article 31(1) and (2), and Article 34 of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da66770 decided Dec. 13, 2007 (Gong2008Sang, 10)

Plaintiff 1 and 23 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorney Park Tae-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Central Institute of Education (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Lee Han-ro et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Changwon District Court Decision 2009Dahap2682, 3043 decided September 15, 2010

June 15, 2011

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiffs' claims against the above revocation are all dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 1, 3, 8, 10, 11, 18, 19, 20, 21 each ten million won to the plaintiffs 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, and 24 each of them, 30 million won per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence 1, 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and Eul evidence 1 through 3, and 8, by considering the whole purport of the pleadings:

A. In recruiting new students in 2009, the Korea National University established and operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant screening”) conducted occasional 2-2 general screenings to select 1,319 persons to enter Ansan Campus (hereinafter “instant screening”). The Plaintiffs supported the instant screenings as shown in [Attachment 2].

B. Korea University selected 90% of the curriculum area in the first stage of the instant screening (hereinafter referred to as the “student”) by reflecting 10% of the school life records (hereinafter referred to as the “school life records”) and 15 to 17 multiples of the recruitment number. In the curriculum area, the original score, average, and standard segment (which is the numerical value representing how much of the individual datum numbers are distinguished from the average; when the standard segment is zero days, the total observation value is equal; when the standard segment is larger, there are a large difference of the average value among the observation values), tin grade (which is divided into nine grades. The first grade is up to 4%, the second grade is up to 11%, the third grade is up to 3%, the third grade is up to 40%, the upper grade is up to 60%, the upper grade is up to 60%, the upper grade is up to 70%, the upper grade is up to 97%, and the fourth class 9 to 96% below the average grade 6.

** is a process to reduce disadvantages of applicants in cases where the problem is too difficult or easily prepared, by adjusting the sexual difficulty and variability existing between subjects in the same scale.

(1) Transfer of property in the class of subject (hereinafter “instant formula”)

SETP 1. Calculation of Standardization Points by subject

A person shall be appointed.

SETP 2. Z* and W's calculation by subject

2-1. Average standardization scores;

A person shall be appointed.

2-2. Points of the standardization of standard tolerances;

A person shall be appointed.

STEP 3. 과목별 점수(Ｑ) 산출

3-1. Ｖ점수 산출

(산식 1) Ｖ = MAX(Y - α1β|Z*|, k3) Where Y ≥ k3

(산식 2) Ｖ = MIN(Y + α2β|Z*|, k3) Where Y 〈 k3

β = 1 Where W ≤ k1

C = (W-2)/(k1-k2) Where k1/Wed2

β = 0 Where W ≥ k2

x1, x2, k1, k2, and k3 (hereinafter referred to as "amount of prize") shall be determined by the student records of the applicant.

3-2. 과목별 점수(Ｑ) 산출

Q = P[Z≤V] : Ｖ의 누적확률

(2) Calculation of points for each class;

A person shall be appointed.

(3) Final score calculation

*최종학생부 성적 = 평균[Σ(학년별 교과 점수 × 학년별 반영비율)]

C. The relationship between the instant formula and the original score, average, standard, tin, etc. is as follows:

(1) At the stage of SETP 1.

The Y value is the same as the standard score in the Collegetic Ability Test for each subject, and it indicates the relative position of the applicant among the total points of the high school students in the subjects completed by the applicant. In this case, the Y value is the small number of the standard high school in the relevant subject, and the average points of the applicant in the relevant high school are higher than the average points in the relevant subject in the relevant high school. In addition, the Y value represents the relative position of the applicant in the relevant high school rather than the original grade.

(2) Z* value and W value at the stage of SETP 2.

(1) Z* value

Z*값은 평균의 표준화 점수로서 지원자가 이수한 과목을 포함한 당해 고등학교 동일 교과 영역(국어 교과에는 국어, 독서, 작문, 문학 등의 개별 과목이 있고, 영어 교과에는 영어, 영어회화, 영어독해, 영어작문 등의 개별 과목이 있으며, 수학 교과에는 수학, 수학 I, 수학 II, 미분과 적분 등의 개별 과목이 있고, 사회 교과에는 사회, 국사, 정치, 경제 등의 개별 과목이 있으며, 과학 교과에는 과학, 물리 I, 물리 II, 화학 I 등의 개별 과목이 있는바, 동일 교과 영역 내의 여러 과목 중 구체적인 이수 과목의 결정은 해당 고등학교나 학생들의 선택에 따라 달라질 수 있다) 내에 속하는 모든 과목의 평균 중에서 지원자가 이수한 과목의 당해 고등학교 평균의 상대적 위치를 나타낸다. 이때 Z*값은 지원자가 이수한 과목의 당해 고등학교 평균이 당해 고등학교 동일 교과 영역 내에 속하는 모든 과목의 평균에 비해서 유독 크거나 작을수록 |Z*|는 큰 값을 가지게 된다.

(2) W value.

The W value represents the relative location of the high school level of the subjects completed by the applicant among the standard parts of all subjects belonging to the same subject area of the high school, including subjects completed by the applicant as standard parts of the standard part of the standard part of the standard part of the standard part of the subjects. In this case, the W value is that the high school level of the subjects completed by the applicant is larger than the standard part of all subjects belonging to the same subject area of the high school.

(3) V value and Q value at the stage of SETP 3.

(1) V value

과목별 표준화 점수인 Y값을 k3값인 1.226528(석차등급 2등급, 상위 11%)과 비교하여, Y값이 석차등급 2등급 이상인 경우에는 (산식 1)을 적용하고, Y값이 석차등급 2등급 미만인 경우에는 (산식 2)를 적용한다. 즉, V값은 Y값이 석차등급 2등급보다 크거나 같은 경우에는 (산식 1)에 따라 Y값에서 보정되는 값인 1/4β|Z*|를 뺀 점수와 석차등급 2등급에 해당하는 점수 중 큰 점수가 되고, Y값이 석차등급 2등급보다 작은 경우에는 (산식 2)에 따라 Y값에서 보정되는 값인 3/4β|Z*|를 더한 점수와 석차등급 2등급에 해당하는 점수 중 작은 점수가 된다.

이때 석차등급 보정이 어느 정도 이루어지는가는 결국 αβ|Z*|의 크기에 따라 달라진다. 먼저 α값은 전체 지원자 중 석차등급 2등급 이상 지원자 수의 비율에 따라, 즉 석차등급 2등급 이상 지원자 수가 25% 정도일 경우에는 α1값을 1/4로, α2값을 3/4으로, 석차등급 2등급 이상 지원자 수가 33% 정도일 경우에는 α1값을 1/3로, α2값을 2/3로 각 정하게 되는데, 결국 α값을 기준으로 할 때 석차등급 2등급 이상 지원자의 경우에는 상대적으로 작게 보정되고, 석차등급 2등급 미만 지원자의 경우에는 상대적으로 많이 보정된다. 다음으로 β값은 W값에 반비례하는 기능을 가지고 있어 지원자가 이수한 과목의 당해 고등학교 표준편차가 당해 고등학교 동일 교과 영역 내에 속하는 모든 과목의 표준편차에 비해서 작을수록, 즉 W값이 작을수록 β값이 1에 가까워져 상대적으로 많이 보정되고, 지원자가 이수한 과목의 당해 고등학교 표준편차가 당해 고등학교 동일 교과 영역 내에 속하는 모든 과목의 표준편차에 비해서 클수록, 즉 W값이 클수록 β값이 0에 가까워져 상대적으로 작게 보정된다. 또한 지원자가 이수한 과목의 당해 고등학교 평균이 당해 고등학교 동일 교과 영역 내에 속하는 모든 과목의 평균에 비해서 유독 크거나 작을수록 |Z*|는 큰 값을 가지게 되어 상대적으로 많이 보정된다.

(2) Q value

Q value is used to indicate the relative position of the relevant applicant among the whole applicants by using the V value, which is the value of correction of the Y value for each item.

(4) If the YP 1. and TPPP 2. each stage of standardization, the Y value, which is the standard for each item, was revised by the Y value compared to the Y-class applicants with the Y value higher than the Y-class applicants with the Y value higher than the Y-class applicants with the Y value higher than the Y-class 2 higher than the Y-class applicants, and the Y-class change in the Y-class is not made by the Y-class applicants with the Y value lower than the Y-class 2.25 higher than the Y-class applicants, or by the Y-class 2 higher than the Y-class applicants.

D. Even after the amendment of the original grade of the subject area according to the instant formula, the Plaintiffs were within 15 to 17 times of the recruitment number. However, as a result of the combination of comparative studies and evaluations of performance in the field, the Plaintiffs excluded from the first stage of the instant screening. The Korea University did not publicly notify in advance the comparison and the first stage of the instant screening, and the assessment items, assessment methods, and allocated marks.

E. The Korea University selected new students from the time of the recruitment of new students from the time of occasional two semesters in 2008 to the time of the recruitment of new students, and the controversy over the instant formula continued, the Korea University did not apply the instant formula from the time of the recruitment of new students in 2010.

F. Meanwhile, in recruiting new students in the year 2009, a major university located in Seoul, a research institute in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, a school for senior citizens, a college for senior citizens, a college for senior citizens, a central university for senior citizens, the Hanyang National University, and a women's college for natural students, the results of each subject of support were calculated by using the classification conversion table according to the tin margin, after calculating the original score, average, standard rate, etc. of the subject of the subject as an index for the standard of the subject, and then correcting the original tin grade by using the classification conversion table according to the tin margin, or reflecting the average tin grade calculated by adding the scores corresponding to the original tin grade by the number of completion units.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

대학교 입학시험에서 평가기관의 폭넓은 재량이 인정된다고 하더라도 그 평가기준은 객관적이고 합리적이어야 하며 자의적이어서는 안 될 것인데, 이 사건 전형 1단계 심사에서, ① 교과 영역의 평가에 있어서 각기 여건이 다른 고등학교의 내신 성적을 보정한다는 핑계로 표준점수 요소를 중복하여 적용함으로써 평균이 높고 표준편차가 작은 특목고를 포함한 속칭 일류고(이하 ‘일류고’라고 한다) 출신 지원자들의 내신 성적을 큰 폭으로 상향조정하여 그 평가방법에 있어서 합리적인 기준을 벗어났고, ② 고등교육법 시행령 제34조 에 의하면 일반전형은 일반학생을 대상으로 보편적인 교육적 기준에 따라 학생을 선발하는 전형이라고 정의되어 있고, 이때 보편적인 교육적 기준이라 함은 고등학교 교사나 학생들이 모두 이해할 수 있는 합리적인 기준이라고 할 것인데, 일반전형인 이 사건 전형 1단계에서 지원자의 성적을 일정한 조건에 따라 두 가지 방식(STEP 3.)으로 보정한 것은 합리적인 기준에 따른 전형방법이라고 할 수 없으며, ③ 이 사건 산식 중 STEP 3. 3-1. 단계에서 V값을 산출함에 있어, 위 산식에 따라 (산식 2)에서는 Y값에서 α2β|Z*|를 빼서 보정하여야 함에도 실제 전형에서는 이와 반대로 Y값에서 α2β|Z*|를 더하여 보정하였고, ④ 이 사건 산식 중 STEP 3. 단계에서, 상수값을 자의적으로 정하였을 뿐만 아니라 원고들로서는 그 상수값을 모르는 상태에서 이 사건 산식에 따른 사정 기준을 통과하려면 어떤 자격을 갖추어야 하는지를 알 수 없게 되어 이를 객관적이고 예측 가능한 선발방법이라고 할 수 없으며, ⑤ 비교과 영역의 평가항목이나 평가방법 및 배점 등을 공고하지 않아 원고들이 예상하지 못한 평가항목이 반영되었을 뿐만 아니라 비교과 영역의 배점 및 등급 간 점수 차이, 반영비율이 교과 영역의 등급 간 점수 차이 등을 초과할 정도로 합리적·객관적 범위를 벗어났다고 할 것인바, 고려대학교가 이와 같이 위법한 이 사건 전형 1단계를 실시하여 그러한 위법행위가 없었더라면 당연히 합격하였을 원고들을 탈락시킴으로써 원고들에게 정신적 고통을 입게 하였으므로, 피고는 위와 같은 위법행위로 인하여 원고들이 입은 정신적 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다.

(2) The defendant's assertion

In this regard, the Defendant asserts that, according to the standard points for each high school, if it does not adjust the original grade by taking into account the number of students who completed a specific subject into account the difficulty of examination questions and the differences in the number of applicants, it is difficult to secure the fairness of internal science, as well as that of good faith victims, it is difficult for Korea University to secure the fairness of internal science and to create good faith victims. Accordingly, according to the instant calculation method, which is a fair and objective method for independent research and development of the university, first instance school’s standardization process for individual students, and secondly, it is necessary to revise the first grade of the applicants based on the standard points through the standardization process at the university that takes into account the whole applicants, and ultimately, it is not necessary to determine the number of applicants who completed the specific subject in each high school, and the first grade and the first grade grade of the applicants based on the standard points to be determined by the standard points to be determined by the academic field of study and the number of applicants to be determined by the average number of applicants who passed the selection method and the first grade method to be determined by the number of applicants.

(b) Details of the relevant provisions of the Higher Education Act and the basic plan for admission screening to universities and colleges in 2009;

(1) Higher Education Act

Article 34 (Selection Method of Students)

(1) The head of a university or college shall select students to be admitted by general selection or special selection from among those holding qualifications referred to in Article 33 (1).

(2) Matters necessary for the methods of general screening or special screening referred to in paragraph (1), the selection schedule and operation of students shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(2) Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act

Article 31 (Selection of Students)

(1) In selecting new students pursuant to Article 34 (1) of the Act, the head of a university or college shall guarantee the right of all citizens to receive equal education according to their abilities, and shall ensure that elementary and secondary education is operated according to the original purposes of education.

(2) In admission screening under Article 34 (1) of the Act, the heads of universities or colleges shall prepare and implement various methods and standards to ensure that talent, aptitude, abilities, etc. of students may be reflected.

Article 34 (Classification of Admission Screening)

(1) A general screening referred to in Article 34 of the Act shall be a screening which selects general students according to general educational standards, and shall be implemented in public by fair competition according to the standards and methods for admission screening serving the educational purposes of universities or colleges concerned.

(3) Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development Notice No. 2007-83 (Master Plan for Admission Screening to Universities in 2009)

(1) Basic direction for admission screening of universities and colleges in 2009.

In order to contribute to the discovery and fostering of excellent human resources in the 21st century as required by the future society, and to convert the central axis of high school education into the school outside the school, the process and results of school education in the screening type is emphasized, and the screening is diversified in connection with autonomousization and specialization of universities.

In formulating a screening plan, each university or college shall guarantee the right of all citizens to receive equal education according to their abilities in accordance with Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act, promote elementary and secondary education to be operated according to its original purpose, and endeavor to contribute to the mitigation of the dependence on private education of the people, and the Government shall provide administrative and financial support so that the university or college can contribute to the normalization of school education through the student ratio and method of reflection.

○ The restriction on the entrance system, high school grade system, and written examinations other than written examinations shall be set up as “minimum standards” for the normalization and fair and reasonable selection of students, and where the minimum standards are violated, the effectiveness shall be secured through corrective measures, administrative and financial measures, etc.

(2) Matters concerning admission process.

○ Department of Students

A university or college shall reasonably determine the reflection rate and method (e.g., setting points between grades) of the college or university in the direction of emphasizing the process and results of school education at the admission screening of universities or colleges, and may reflect the characteristics and characteristics of the relevant high school only in cases of admission to a university or college or graduate by the same field special screening, and in principle, the same standards as those of general high school graduates shall apply to those of special high school graduates who have applied for screening other than the same field special screening.

○ General type

In principle, general educational standards for ordinary students shall be implemented through fair competition, and the screening methods, such as subjects of screening, criteria for support, type standards, assessment standards, and assessment models, shall be determined in accordance with the principles of legality, feasibility, reliability, fairness, and public nature, and in principle, standards for qualification may not be established or restricted by inappropriate standards that infringe on equal educational opportunities in light of the purpose of education.

(3) Administrative matters.

Each university or college shall establish an implementation plan for the admission screening of universities or colleges in 2009, including the type of screening, the ratio of reflection by screening element, basic points, and method of reflection, etc., and submit important matters to the Korean Council for Education of Universities or Colleges until the end of February 2008, and the Korean Council for Education of Universities or Colleges may deliberate on the admission screening plan by university or college and take measures for correction or recommendation if it is unlawful or unjust.

(4) Cooperation and guidance matters.

○ General Matters concerning entrance screening

Universities and colleges shall develop and implement a method of screening autonomously diverse and specialized, but shall select various elements, such as special skills, career, character, etc. based on basic academic background by avoiding from a uniform selection practice centered on the previous examination results, shall be continuously research, development and implementation of screening methods for universities and colleges which may contribute to the normalization of elementary and secondary education and the reduction of the burden of private education expenses, use screening data that respect normal school curriculum, comply with the prior notice system of entrance screening plans, and thereby ensure stability and reliability of university entrance screening by allowing students and their parents to enter universities and college students who can be predicted through such prior notice system.

○ Utilization of screening data

The university shall use screening data suitable for a screening method to reflect the various qualities and aptitudes of students according to the educational ideology, characteristics of recruitment units, etc., and shall utilize various commendation data, such as results of winning various contests, data related to service activities, qualifications, experience, etc., and previous prizes.

C. Whether the first stage of the screening of this case is illegal

(1) In the admission process of each university or college, not only the College Ability Test in charge of the implementation and management by the State, but also each university or college entrance screening, questions and points, decision-making, marking or interview method, detailed calculation method and standard of points, and the selection of successful applicants are, in principle, entrusted to the decision-making of the test executor's own policy or autonomous decision-making by the person in charge of screening procedure. However, it is illegal only where the method or standard violates the Constitution or laws or loses excessive rationality and objective legitimacy, or where it is determined that the method or standard has been abused or abused its discretionary power significantly or unfairly in light of the purpose of the test or entrance screening, or the purpose of the entrance screening, and the purpose of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da66770, Dec. 13, 2007).

(2) In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult for the Plaintiffs to believe that the first step of the instant case, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, corresponds to the illegality of Gap’s 2, 3, 5, and 7 by abusing or abusing discretionary power, and each entry of Gap’s 1, 4, and 1 through 3, 5 through 11, are not disputed between the parties or may be acknowledged by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

① All universities, including the Korea National University, guarantee the constitutional freedom of study, including the right to self-determination of school affairs, such as the selection of students. Among them, in admission process by each university, qualifications for support, number of students, elements of reflection, ratio of reflection, detailed methods and standards for calculation of points, selection of successful applicants, etc. are, in principle, entrusted to autonomous judgment of each university, which is the person in charge of screening procedure, and is subject to wide discretion.

(2) The YP1. The Y value of each subject, which is standardized for each subject, shows the relative position of the applicant among the total points of high school students who have completed the subjects. However, the Y value alone is not enough to reflect all the number of applicants who have completed the subjects in the same subject area of high school, the degree of difficulty in examination problems, and the difference of side effects in the number of applicants who have completed the subjects in the same subject area of high school. (The YP1.) The Y value of each subject is better than the subjects where the applicant can easily attend the subjects in the same subject area rather than the subjects where it is difficult for students to study in the same subject area, and even if the 10 persons have completed the 10 persons and the 100 persons have completed the 10 persons, the same shall not apply to the students' academic achievement even if the 10 persons have completed the 10 persons and the 100 persons have completed the 10 persons.

③ In order to calculate points by item using standardized points, average and standard parts of the subject completed by the applicant, the V value is calculated (STP 3-1.). As seen earlier, in the process, the Y value is applied differently (mar 1) in cases of applicants with at least Grade 2, and in cases of applicants with below Grade 2, (mar 2) in which the Y value is below Grade 2. As a result, the Y value is relatively high compared to those of applicants with grade 2 or above, it is difficult to determine that the Y value is lower than that of applicants with less than Grade 2. However, even if it is difficult to determine that the Y value is lower than that of those who applied for the examination in the instant case and that the 2nd grade is applied to all applicants, and it is difficult to determine that the 2nd grade is lower than that of those who applied for the 2nd grade or higher than that of those who applied for the 2nd grade, it is difficult to determine that the 2nd grade is less than that of those who applied for the 2nd grade or lower than the 2nd grade.

④ 원고들은 STEP 3-1. 단계에서의 (산식 2)가 결국 지원자들이 이수한 과목의 평균이 높고 표준편차가 작은 일류고 출신의 석차등급 2등급 미만 지원자들을 우대하기 위한 것이라고 하나, 일류고의 경우 학업성취도가 비교적 균일할 가능성은 많으나 일류고라고 하여 이수한 과목의 평균이 높고 표준편차가 작다는 전제가 당연히 성립하지는 않고(이러한 전제는 지원자들의 출신 고등학교가 모두 동일한 문제로 시험을 친다는 가정하에 성립되는 것인데 이러한 전제가 잘못된 것임은 명백하고, 일반고의 경우에도 지원자가 이수한 과목의 시험문제가 아주 쉽게 출제되었을 경우에는 평균이 높을 수 있고, 지원자가 이수한 과목의 시험문제가 아주 어렵거나 쉽게 출제되었을 경우에는 표준편차가 작을 수도 있다), 이수한 과목의 평균이 높은 경우뿐만 아니라 이수한 과목의 평균이 아주 낮은 경우에도 결국 |Z*|가 큰 값을 가지게 되어 상대적으로 보정이 많이 이루어지게 되며, 근본적으로 |Z*|값과 W값은 지원자가 이수한 과목의 평균과 표준편차에 따라 고등학교별로 달라지는 것이 아니라 지원자가 이수한 과목을 포함한 당해 고등학교 동일 교과 영역 내에 속하는 모든 과목의 평균과 표준편차에 대한 지원자가 이수한 과목의 당해 고등학교 평균과 표준편차의 상대값에 따라 같은 고등학교 내에서 이수한 과목별로 달라지는 것이고(즉, 같은 고등학교 내에서 지원자가 이수한 과목을 포함한 당해 고등학교 동일 교과 영역 내에 속하는 모든 과목의 평균과 표준편차에 비해 상대적으로 지원자가 이수한 과목의 당해 고등학교 평균이 유독 높거나 낮을 경우 또는 표준편차가 작을 경우에 그 보정의 폭이 커지게 되는 것이다), 이러한 |Z*|값과 W값은 고등학교별로 서로 다를 뿐만 아니라 같은 고등학교 내에서도 과목별로, 그것도 매년 달라질 수밖에 없다.

⑤ As a result of the analysis of the plaintiffs' sexual results by applying the instant formula, 12 of the plaintiffs 24 was higher than the original tin grade, and 1 did not change the tin grade. In addition, as seen earlier, the plaintiffs were within 15 times to 17 times the number of applicants, even after the adjustment of the original tin grade in the school area according to the instant formula, even after the adjustment of the original tin grade in the school area.

⑥ 비록 을 제1호증(모집요강)에는 이 사건 산식 중 STEP 3. 3-1. 단계에서 (산식 2)가 “Y - α2β|Z*|”로 기재되어 있으나, 고려대학교의 2008학년도 정시모집요강(을 제8호증의 1)과 2009학년도 정시모집요강(을 제8호증의 2)에는 STEP 3. 3-1. 단계에서 (산식 2)가 “Y + α2β|Z*|”로 기재되어 있고, 실제로 고려대학교는 이 사건 전형 1단계에서 “Y + α2β|Z*|”로 하여 (산식 2)를 적용하였는바, 위와 같은 사정에 비추어 보면 을 제1호증(모집요강)의 “Y - α2β|Z*|”는 “Y + α2β|Z*|”의 오기임이 명백하다.

7) In the instant formula, the upper value at the stage of SETP 3. In addition, the upper value at the stage of SETP 3. The upper value may vary by the total number of applicants and the student records, etc. As seen earlier, it appears difficult to publicly announce it in advance by means of a specific value. The above upper value is not applied differently depending on the high school from the applicant or the applicant, but it is uniformly applied to all applicants. In addition, in light of the fact that the Korea National University has publicly announced in advance that the above upper value is determined by the student records of the applicant, and that it can be seen that the applicant can be seen that the above upper value is adjusted by posting a new sexual calculation program in which the above upper value is applied on its Internet homepage so that it can be seen that the applicant can be seen that the above upper value was not publicly announced in advance, and thus it is difficult to regard it as a arbitrary selection method or an unpredictable selection method.

8) In order to select talented human resources with more creative, autonomous, and potential in comparison and domains entered in the student register, the Korea National University determined and publicly announced the ratio of reflection of comparison and domains as seen earlier, as seen earlier. Accordingly, four areas were determined as evaluation items based on the evaluation factors for the various comparison and domains entered in the student register, and the first step of the screening of the instant case was conducted. This is also consistent with the basic direction for the admission screening of universities that allows new students to be selected by taking advantage of various evaluation factors, such as the results of winning various competitions, relevant materials such as volunteer activities, qualification, career, career, etc., and various commendation materials, etc. based on the basic academic background.

9) As seen earlier, the Korea University did not first publicly announce the assessment items, assessment methods, and marks in the first phase of the screening process of the instant case. However, if the assessment items, assessment methods, and marks were to be publicly announced in advance, it would rather lead to leaving the private education. Accordingly, it would be contrary to the basic direction of university entrance screening to ease the dependence on school education normalization and the private education among the public. Considering the fact that Korea University does not seem to have taken at least those items not indicated in the student register as assessment items in the comparison and field, not only Korea University but also other universities do not make public the assessment items or assessment methods of the comparative and field. In fact, the difference between the successful applicants of the first phase of the instant screening process of the instant screening process of the instant case and the performance assessment in the field of the comparative and field of the first grade, it is difficult to readily conclude that the difference between the successful applicants of 88.16% has been determined by the class points in the subject area of the curriculum, and if it is considerably difficult to determine the scope of the evaluation items and grade of the highest score.

(10) The Korea University established an implementation plan for the admission screening of universities, including the type of screening, the ratio of reflection of each screening element, the basic score, and the method of reflection prior to the public announcement of the recruitment for new students in 2008 and 2009, and submitted it to the Korean University Education Council. There was no particular corrective or advisory measure from the deliberation committee on the admission screening plan of universities belonging to the Korean University Education Council in charge of prior deliberation

(3) Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, in order to achieve the purpose of selecting excellent human resources in the 21st century, which is demanded by the creative, autonomous, and potential future society, by sufficiently reflecting the character, aptitude, and abilities of students in relation to the first step of the screening of the instant case, the Korea University shall have broad discretion based on its own expertise and autonomous judgment in terms of qualifications for applicants, recruitment number, factors of reflection, reflection rate, detailed method and criteria for calculation of points, successful applicants, selection of successful applicants, etc. In this regard, the first step of screening of the instant case shall be deemed to fall under the scope of discretion as above of Korea University related to admission screening, and the method or criteria thereof shall not be deemed to fall under the scope of discretion of Korea University related to admission screening, where it violates the Constitution or laws, loses the objective legitimacy, or where it considerably unreasonable or unjust in light of the purpose of admission screening, the Higher Education Act, etc.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, it is difficult to accept the plaintiffs' claims based on the premise that the first step of the screening of this case is illegal, without considering different points such as the amount of damages.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and since the judgment of the court of first instance which partially different conclusions is unfair, the part against the defendant in the judgment of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiffs' claim as to the cancellation portion is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 1] List of Plaintiffs: omitted

[Attachment 2] List: omitted

Judges Heung-heung (Presiding Judge)