Whether a person who passed the second and third examination conducted after the second examination failed to pass the examination has a legal interest in seeking revocation of the disposition of failure to pass the examination (negative)

Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1123 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Hong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Minister of Justice

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Nu21278 decided May 22, 2007

The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined ex officio.

In full view of the provisions of Articles 1 through 12 of the Judicial Examination Act, and Article 72 of the Court Organization Act, the final passing of the judicial examination is merely a prerequisite for a successful applicant to be appointed as a judicial trainee, and it does not change the legal status of the successful applicant itself. Thus, if a successful applicant passed the second and third tests conducted after the disposition of failure to pass the secondary examination, it shall be deemed that there is no legal interest to seek the cancellation of the above disposition of failure (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu6867, Nov. 9, 1993; 95Nu2685, Feb. 23, 1996, etc.).

According to the above legal principles and records, the plaintiff applied for the second examination of the 47th judicial examination implemented in 2005 and received the disposition of failure in the case, and filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance claiming revocation of the disposition of failure in the case. The plaintiff passed the second examination of the 48th judicial examination after the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, and applied for the third examination and passed the last examination on November 28, 2006. Thus, the plaintiff has no legal interest in dispute over the validity of the disposition of failure in the case.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interest of lawsuit, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the premise that the lawsuit in this case is lawful.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and since this case is sufficient for the Supreme Court to directly render a judgment, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed, and all costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff who is the losing party, as per the

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)