1. On September 10, 2018, the Defendant’s management analysis test for three major departments in the management of the German academic degree system to the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

The Defendant is a person entrusted with the matters concerning the conduct of the examination for taking a degree to a person who takes a degree from the Minister of Education pursuant to Articles 3 and 7 of the Act on the Acquisition of Academic Degrees through Self-Education (hereinafter referred to as the “Education Act”) and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Self-Education Act.

The Plaintiff applied for the recognition test of advanced major courses (management major), which was conducted by the Defendant on August 12, 2018, through the Self-Education in 2018 (hereinafter “instant test”).

The major major course examination of the German academic degree system was composed of 8 subjects in total of finance management theory, management strategy, investment theory, management science, financial accounting, management analysis, labor-management relations theory, and consumer behavior theory. However, each subject was composed of 60 points (24 points, 2.5 points, and 40 points (4 points and 10 points in each clause) and 40 points (10 points).

In the above examination, 60 points out of 100 points for each subject shall be passed, and the passing of the examination shall be recognized, but only the passing of the examination shall be determined.

On September 10, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the instant subject examination (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the test scores (58.5 points) acquired by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant subject”) fall short of the test scores (60 points).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6, and entry of the whole purport of the pleading in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition did not indicate the direction that “the course is written” in the subjective test as to the provision Nos. 1, 2, and 4 of the instant subject among the instant examination. Accordingly, the Plaintiff submitted only the answer requested by the Plaintiff as the answer.

However, the defendant reduced 5 points each on the ground that the plaintiff's answer does not have a pooling process in each of the above doors, and the plaintiff eventually points the passing point on the subject of this case.