[1] Criteria for determining whether measures are necessary to protect the trust of the parties to the existence of the former Act by establishing transitional provisions in the amendment of Acts and subordinate statutes, and in a case where public officials who participated in the administrative legislation find a reasonable ground as to the existence of the former Act and subsequently implemented or applied the new Act and subordinate statutes without taking any measure, such as establishing transitional provisions according to any one opinion, but the judgment later differs from the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court, and thereby led to the violation of the principle of trust protection, etc., whether public officials, who

[2] In a case where Gap et al., who received a disposition of failure to pass an examination implemented on May 26, 2002 as a result of changing the first examination of patent attorney under Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Patent Attorney Act as the amendment on March 25, 2002 from the "Absolute assessment system" to the "detailed assessment system", was subject to a disposition of failure to pass an examination conducted on May 26, 2002, and the decision of the Supreme Court that immediately implemented the above provision was unconstitutional and invalid, was subject to the State liability, the case holding that the

[1] Even in cases where the broad discretion of legislators is recognized in the amendment of statutes, if the parties’ trust in the existence of the former statutes is reasonable and justifiable, and if the public interest purpose to achieve new statutes is unable to justify the destruction of such trust due to extreme damage to the parties involved, then the legislators shall take appropriate measures to protect the parties’ trust, such as establishing transitional provisions, and it is not permissible to implement or apply the new statutes without such appropriate measures. This is because this is contrary to the principle of protection of trust derived from the principle of the rule of law, which is the basic principle of the Constitution. However, in order to determine whether such measures of protection of trust are necessary, the legislators should comprehensively compare and balance the degree of trust of the parties concerned, the value of the trust interest protection, and the public interest purpose to be realized through new statutes. Accordingly, if a public official participating in the administrative legislation without taking a reasonable ground in consideration of various factors at the time of legislation, and if the public official newly implements or applies the statutes without taking measures such as establishing a transitional provision pursuant to one of the opinions, then the Supreme Court’s judgment cannot be found to be contrary to the principle of the State’s liability for compensation.

[2] In a case where Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Patent Attorney Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17551, Mar. 25, 2002; Presidential Decree No. 4(1) of the Patent Attorney Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17551) changed the first patent attorney examination from "a comparison evaluation system" to "a comparison evaluation system", and subsequently, the decision of the Supreme Court was issued that the above provision should be immediately enforced on May 26, 2002, and the decision of the court below that the above provision should be enforced on the ground that Gap et al. was invalid since it violated the Constitution, the court held that public officials participating in the legislation of the above Enforcement Decree and the Addenda should find a reasonable ground in light of various factors at the time of legislation and without taking one opinion, and thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the State's liability for damages on the ground that the above provision violated the Constitution, and thus, the subsequent provision was unlawful, and thus, it did not affect the State's negligence.

[1] Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act / [2] Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 4-2 of the Patent Attorney Act, Article 4 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Patent Attorney Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18387 of May 10, 2004), Addenda (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18387 of March 25, 2002)

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 2003Du12899 Decided November 16, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 2085)

See Attached List of Plaintiffs (Law Firm Jeong-il, Attorneys Seo-Gyeong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea (Law Firm Apex, Attorneys Cheong-seok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na61528 decided January 12, 2011

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Even if the broad discretion of the legislators in the amendment of the statutes is recognized, if the parties' trust in the existence of the former statutes is reasonable, reasonable, and reasonable, and if the public interest purpose of the amendment of the statutes is not to justify the destruction of such trust due to the extreme damage to the parties involved, the legislators shall take appropriate measures to protect the parties' trust, such as establishing transitional regulations, and it is not permissible to implement or apply the new statutes without any appropriate measures. This is because it violates the principle of protection of trust derived from the principle of the rule of law, which is the basic principle of the Constitution (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2003Du12899, Nov. 16, 2006, etc.).

However, in order to determine whether such measures should be taken, legislators should comprehensively compare and balance the degree of trust of the parties concerned, the value of trust interest protection, and the public interest purpose to be realized through new laws and regulations. Since there are various opinions regarding such comparison and balancing, if a public official involved in an administrative legislation implements or applies a new law without taking any measure such as establishing transitional regulations in accordance with a certain opinion by finding a reasonable ground in consideration of various factors in the situation at the time of legislation, it cannot be said that there was a negligence by a public official, which is the requirement for establishing State liability under Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, even if the judgment of the public official is the same as the judgment of the Supreme Court last, and the enforcement decree, etc. result in a violation of the principle of trust protection, etc., even in such

2. 원심이 원용한 제1심판결 이유 및 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거 등에 의하면, ① 피고 산하 특허청장이 시행하는 변리사 제1차 시험은 2000. 6. 27. 대통령령 제16867호로 변리사법 시행령이 개정되면서, 선발예정인원의 범위 안에서 합격자를 결정하던 종전의 ‘상대평가제’에서, 일정 점수(매과목 40점, 전과목 평균 60점) 이상을 득점한 응시자를 모두 합격시키는 ‘절대평가제’로 전환되었는데( 제4조 ), 이는 규제개혁위원회가 1999. 7. 16. 변리사 등 전문자격사의 선발인원을 확대하기 위하여 일정 점수 이상의 득점자를 전원 합격시키는 자격검증시험제도로 전환하도록 의결함에 따른 것이었고, 다만 위 절대평가제는 준비기간을 두어 2002. 1. 1.부터 시행하도록 한 사실, ② 이에 따라 특허청장은 2002. 1. 10. 특허청 인터넷 홈페이지의 ‘공지사항’란에 위 시행령 규정에 따라 절대평가제로 시행될 첫 시험인 제39회 변리사 제1차 시험(이하 ‘이 사건 시험’이라고 한다)을 같은 해 3. 31.에 시행하겠다는 이 사건 시험 일정을 발표한 사실, ③ 그러나 3일 만인 같은 해 1. 12. 위 발표문이 삭제되었고, 같은 해 1. 17. 효율적인 시험관리를 위하여 변리사 제1차 시험을 절대평가제에서 다시 상대평가제(매과목 40점, 전과목 평균 60점 이상을 득점한 자 중 시험성적과 응시자 수를 고려하여 전과목 총득점에 의한 고득점자 순으로 합격자 결정)로 변경한다는 내용의 변리사법 시행령 중 개정령(안) 입법예고가 관보에 게재되었으며, 같은 해 3. 25. 변리사법 시행령 제4조 제1항 이 위 입법예고와 동일한 내용으로 개정·공포된 사실(대통령령 제17551호), ④ 그런데 위 개정 시행령은 그 부칙에서 “이 영은 공포한 날로부터 시행한다.”고 규정함으로써 위 절대평가제는 시행되지 못한 채 같은 해 5. 26. 실시된 이 사건 시험부터 종전의 상대평가제로 환원된 사실(이하 2002. 3. 25. 대통령령 제17551호로 개정된 시행령을 ‘개정 시행령’, 그 부칙을 ‘이 사건 부칙’, 그 개정 전의 시행령을 ‘개정 전 시행령’이라고 한다), ⑤ 원고들은 각 이 사건 시험에 응시하여 절대평가제에 의하면 합격점수인 매과목 40점, 전과목 평균 60점 이상을 득점한 사실, ⑥ 그러나 특허청장은 2002. 7. 25. 이 사건 시험의 합격자 1,047명의 명단을 발표하면서, 원고들의 득점이 상대평가제에 의한 합격기준인 평균 득점 66.88점에 미달한다는 이유로 원고들을 합격자 명단에서 제외하여 이 사건 시험의 불합격자로 처리한 사실(이하 ‘이 사건 처분’이라고 한다), ⑦ 원고들 중 원고 240 외 2인은 2002. 10. 22. 특허청장을 상대로 서울행정법원(2002구합35475호) 에 이 사건 처분에 대한 취소의 소를 제기하여 패소판결을 선고받고 항소하였는데, 항소심인 서울고등법원(2003누4111호) 에서 불합격처분취소판결을 선고받고, 2006. 11. 16. 대법원(2003두12899호) 에서 제1차 시험의 상대평가제를 규정한 개정 시행령을 이 사건 시험에 시행하는 것은 헌법상 신뢰보호의 원칙에 비추어 허용될 수 없으므로, 이 사건 부칙 중 개정 시행령을 즉시 이 사건 시험에 대하여 시행하도록 규정한 부분은 헌법에 위반되어 무효이고, 따라서 특허청장이 이 사건 시험에는 개정 시행령 제4조 제1항 을 적용할 수 없음에도 이를 적용하여 위 원고들에게 한 이 사건 처분은 위법하다는 원심을 수긍하면서 특허청장의 상고를 기각함으로써 위 원고들의 승소판결이 확정되었으며, 이에 특허청장은 2006. 12. 20. 위 행정소송의 당사자인 위 원고들뿐만 아니라 나머지 원고들에 대하여도 모두 추가합격처분을 한 사실, ⑧ 한편 변리사시험은 1963년부터 시행되었고, 제1차와 제2차 시험의 구분이 없는 상태에서 그때부터 1983년 시험까지는 절대평가제로 실시되었는데, 1983. 11. 15. 변리사법 시행령의 개정으로 제1차, 제2차 시험으로 구분되어 제1차 시험에 합격하지 않으면 제2차 시험에 응시할 수 없도록 하면서 그 부칙에 따라 같은 날부터 시행되었고, 1992. 10. 27. 변리사법 시행령의 개정에 따라 제1차 시험에 대하여 상대평가제를 실시하면서 그 부칙에 따라 같은 날부터 시행되었는바, 즉 1963년부터 1992년 시험당시까지 약 30년간 절대평가제로 실시하던 것을 1992. 10. 27.부터 제1차 시험에 상대평가제를 도입하여 당일부터 시행되기도 한 사실 등을 알 수 있다.

3. A. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, first of all, infringement on the trust interest that the examination of this case should be conducted pursuant to the Enforcement Decree prior to the amendment of the amended Enforcement Decree is excessive to the extent that it could not be justified even if considering the public interest purpose to be achieved immediately by the immediate enforcement of the amended Enforcement Decree. Thus, the execution of the examination of this case in 2002 under Article 4(1) of the amended Enforcement Decree, which provides a counter-evaluation system for the first examination, shall not be permitted in light of the principles of trust protection under the Constitution. Thus, the part of Article 4(1) of the Addenda of the amended Enforcement Decree, which sets the enforcement period for the immediately enforcement of the examination of this case, shall be deemed to be in violation of the Constitution, and therefore, Article 4(1) of the amended Enforcement Decree of the Korean Intellectual Property Office shall not be applied to the plaintiffs. Thus, the disposition of this case made to the plaintiffs by applying

B. However, the legislative purpose of the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Act and the Addenda of the instant case is not only to increase the number of applicants due to such amendment from the legal and institutional point of view, but also to legally guarantee the increase of the number of applicants. Ultimately, it can be achieved by increasing the number of applicants in the second examination, and the first examination is merely an examination to grant the qualifications for the second examination, so it is difficult to view that the first examination of applicants in the second examination is conducted without any reasonable change in the number of applicants in accordance with the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Act and the first examination of the first examination to the extent that the first examination of the second examination is conducted without any reasonable change in the number of applicants in accordance with the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Act and the first examination of the second examination to the extent that the first examination of applicants in the second examination is conducted without any change in the first examination of the second examination to the extent that the first examination of applicants in the second examination is conducted without any justifiable reason. Thus, it is also difficult to interpret that the second examination of applicants in the second examination to the extent it is unreasonable.

C. Nevertheless, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the establishment of the amended Enforcement Decree and the Addenda of the instant case and the enactment of the Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office, the public official in charge of the instant disposition, based thereon, constituted a case where the performance of duties is recognized to have lost objective legitimacy by exercising objective duty of care, and thus, constitutes a case where there is a substantial reason to assume liability for compensating for damages to the State. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on negligence of public officials in the state liability for compensation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment of the court below, and remand the case to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Attachment] List of Plaintiffs: omitted

Justices Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)