1. The plaintiffs' lawsuits against the defendant Republic of Korea are dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' defendant Human Resources Development Service of Korea.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs have been appointed as public officials of the specialized fixed-term system (B) under the Korean Intellectual Property Office, and have performed the duties of examiners examining patent applications for at least five years as listed below.

A CD E F G H H H H I J HK

B. According to the Decree on the Appointment of State Public Officials and the Decree on the Appointment of Public Officials, the Plaintiffs are those in general service among those in career service.

Public officials who are scheduled to serve as public officials during their life among public officials in general service are classified into classes 1 through 9, and the plaintiffs are scheduled to serve for a specified period without applying the classification of ranks.

On the other hand, according to the Public Officials Appointment Rules [Attachment 1], public officials of Grade V, such as the plaintiffs, are prescribed as equivalent to those of Grade V.

C. On November 23, 2016, the Plaintiffs submitted the 54th application form for the second examination to the Defendant, indicating his/her eligibility to take the examination as “persons exempted from the first and second subjects based on career experience,” pursuant to the 54th public notice of the implementation plan for the National Patent Attorney Qualifying Examination (2016-163) by Defendant Human Resources Development Service of Korea on November 23, 2016.

Pursuant to Article 4-2(1) and Article 28 of the Patent Attorney Act, and Article 51 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority, Defendant Human Resources Development Service of Korea entrusted by the Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office with the examination of patent attorneys by the Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office pursuant to Article 51 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority, deemed that the Plaintiffs did not constitute “class-5 or higher-ranking public officials” who are exempted from the primary examination pursuant to Article 4-3(2) of the Patent Attorney Act, and publicly announced the Plaintiffs as the

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiffs.