Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding this case is as stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of “the 9th part of the judgment of the court of first instance” after the addition of “the 9th part of the judgment of the court of first instance” under the main sentence of Article 420 of the
A person shall be appointed.
D. 1) The Plaintiffs asserted that, on the premise that Defendant Human Resources Development Service of Korea did not grant points to the answer written in an ordinary co-litigation, not an essential co-litigation, the Plaintiffs breached their duty of care to commission of examiners and to give appropriate marks. 2) However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone did not give points to the answer written in an ordinary co-litigation rather than an essential co-litigation by Defendant Human Resources Development Service of Korea.
It is insufficient to recognize that he/she has violated the duty of care in examination management, and there is no other evidence to support it.
Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.
E. 1) The Plaintiffs’ assertion on omission in determination as to the application for an order to submit documents (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 1) reflects the tendency of expanding the scope of subject matter of the order to submit documents in order to resolve the structural biased of evidence and ensure fair trial, and thereby, the first instance court is the Defendant’s marking standard table, answer sheet, and score sheet, etc. (hereinafter “instant grading standard table, etc.”) possessed by
(2) In light of the following circumstances, the first instance court’s order to submit documents should be accepted, but the first instance court did not adopt it and omitted judgment thereon. (2) In light of the overall purport of the arguments in the records in this case, it cannot be deemed that there were errors as alleged by the Plaintiffs in the judgment of the first instance.
(1) Article 344(2) of the Civil Procedure Act is or was a public official.