(a) Whether a disposition taken by the head of a university with respect to entrance examinations and special screening of diplomats' children, etc. may be subject to administrative litigation (affirmative);

(b) Whether there is a benefit of a lawsuit in a case where the period of entrance in the year concerned has elapsed and the number of admission falls short of the fixed number of admission during a lawsuit seeking a revocation of failure to pass a university entrance examination (affirmative

C. Whether a failure disposition is appropriate against an applicant who could have passed according to the actual acquisition score by granting 20% additional points to the actual acquisition score only for the children of diplomats and public officials in a special screening for children of overseas workers (negative)

A. If a certain administrative disposition constitutes an abuse or deviation of discretionary authority, the discretionary authority shall be bound, discretionary, free, and shall be subject to judicial review. Accordingly, the case shall be subject to administrative litigation where a special screening for the admission of a diplomat's children, etc. is delegated to the authority in such a manner as determined by the president of a university pursuant to Article 111-2 of the Education Act and Article 71-2(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and where the special screening for the admission of a diplomat's children, etc. is an illegal disposition that abused the president's discretionary authority even

B. Article 72 of the Enforcement Decree of the Education Act and Article 37 (1) of the Regulations of the Seoul National University, or the provisions on the admission quota under Article 2 of the Decree on the admission quota of university students are set by administrative necessity to facilitate educational administration such as school affairs and operation of school affairs, and the successful applicants in any school year are not necessarily required to enter the pertinent year. Thus, even if the time of entrance in the pertinent year has expired during the pertinent lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the non-compliance disposition, if the successful applicants in the pertinent year are recognized to have passed during the pertinent year, they can enter the relevant year. If the successful applicants who should have passed the decision as a matter of course due to the defendant's illegal disposition have passed, they cannot be deemed to have reached the admission quota, and therefore, they cannot be deemed to have legal interest to dispute the legitimacy of the non-compliance disposition by the defendant.

C. Even if there is a wide and narrow difference in the scope of free discretion, the exercise of discretion beyond the above limit by customary law or general cooking shall not be unlawful. Thus, if the Defendant, the president of a university, granted 20% additional points to the actual acquisition score by item only for the children of foreign workers and foreign workers at a special screening under Article 71-2(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Education Act, which granted 20% higher points only for the children of diplomats and public officials, and thus, failed to pass the decision according to the actual acquisition score, it is unlawful.

(a) Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Education Act; Article 72 of the Enforcement Decree of the Education Act; Article 2 of the Decree of the Fixed Number of University Students; Article 111-2 of the Education Act; Article 71-2 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Education Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu451 delivered on January 31, 1984 (Gong1984,455) (Gong1984, 455). Supreme Court Decision 68Nu35 delivered on June 18, 1968 (joint 16Nu18)

Attorney Lee Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and five others

Attorney Yang Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu2426 delivered on November 22, 1989

The grounds of appeal are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1

The administrative disposition subject to the administrative litigation is sufficient if it is illegal, and if a certain administrative disposition is an abuse of discretionary authority or a deviation of discretionary authority, it shall be subject to judicial review (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu415, Jan. 31, 1984; 83Nu415, Jan. 31, 1984; 201-2, Article 111-2 of the Education Act, and Article 71-2 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, even if it is delegated by the court below to the discretion so that children, children and children of the pertinent diplomat, school children, military consignment students, new admission and special transfer examination (hereinafter referred to as the "special examination") of the defendant's own discretion are subject to the administrative litigation, and it is just to have deliberated and judged the case in which the plaintiffs are dissatisfied with the administrative disposition, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the limit of judicial review.

There is no argument in the opposite view.

2. As to ground of appeal No. 2

Article 72 of the Enforcement Decree of the Education Act and Article 37 (1) of the Seoul National University Regulations, or the provisions on the fixed number of admission under Article 2 of the Seoul National University Education Ordinance shall be determined by administrative needs for the smooth operation of educational administration such as school affairs, and a successful applicant of a certain school year shall not be necessarily allowed to enter only the pertinent year. Thus, even if the plaintiffs' successful applicants during the pertinent year have passed during the pertinent lawsuit, they can be allowed to enter the pertinent year if they were successful applicants in the pertinent year. If the plaintiffs' successful applicants who should have passed since they failed and failed to pass the examination as alleged by the defendant's illegal disposition, they cannot be viewed as those entering the fixed number of admission. Thus, they have legal interest in dispute as to the legitimacy of the defendant's rejection disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 68Nu35, Jun. 18, 1968), and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's interest in the pertinent lawsuit as alleged by the court below.

3. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant’s offering of new foreign special screening courses at domestic universities and colleges was unlawful for 12 years or more; and (b) the Defendant’s offering of new foreign teaching materials at domestic universities and colleges by taking account of the difference between the fixed number of foreign diplomats and the fixed number of foreign diplomats; (c) the Defendant’s offering of new foreign teaching materials at domestic universities and foreign universities and the fixed number of foreign teaching materials to be determined based on such difference in the fixed number of foreign diplomats; and (d) the Defendant’s offering of new foreign teaching materials at domestic universities and foreign universities and colleges to be determined based on such difference in the fixed number of schoolchildren at 20 per se; and (e) the Defendant’s offering of new foreign teaching materials to the public officials and the fixed number of foreign teaching materials to be determined based on such difference in the fixed number of foreign diplomats at 10 per se; and (e) the Defendant’s offering of new foreign teaching materials to the public officials and the fixed number of foreign teaching materials to be determined by the Seoul University’s Committee.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the above fact-finding of the court below is justified, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant's lack of proof as to the fact that a diplomat's child such as a diplomat's child is more than a child of commercial state and the period of attending the Republic of Korea is shorter than that of the defendant's father's or misunderstanding. Thus, the defendant's failure to urge the defendant to prove it cannot be viewed as an unlawful act of mistake of facts or lack of right to explanation due to insufficient deliberation as otherwise pointed out, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to free discretion, and even if there is a wide and narrow difference in the scope, there is a certain limit by customary law or general cooking, so the exercise of discretionary power beyond the above limit is not illegal (see Supreme Court Decision 68Nu35 delivered on June 18, 1968). Thus, the court below's decision that the defendant's pass the special screening of this case by giving 20% additional points to the plaintiff's children such as diplomats, public official, etc.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won