1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

In accordance with Article 77(4) of the Medical Service Act, Article 18(2) of the Regulations on Training of Medical Specialists, Recognition of Qualification, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules on Qualifications for Medical Specialists”), and Article 2 of the Standards on Entrustment of Qualification Examinations and Training-Related Affairs, the Defendant is an institution that implements a qualification examination for medical specialists, which is entrusted by the Minister of Health and Welfare with the affairs pertaining to the implementation of a

On January 7, 2019, the Plaintiff applied for the first examination, which is a written examination (hereinafter “instant examination”) among the 62th qualifying examinations administered by the Defendant.

After the examination of this case is completed and the answer sheet is submitted, the plaintiff saw part of the examination issue and see it on the back side of the examination sheet by memorying the percentage test issue.

(hereinafter “instant act”). Since then, the Plaintiff submitted to the supervisor the question and the examination report.

The plaintiff stated that the supervisor was aware of the problem and part of the examination sheet immediately after the dismissal of the examination site.

Based on Article 14 of the Enforcement Rule of the Regulations on the Training, Recognition, etc. of Qualifications of Medical Specialists (hereinafter referred to as the “Enforcement Rule of this case”), Article 10 of the Operational Rule of Medical Specialists (hereinafter referred to as the “Operation Rule of this case”), and Article 5 of the Guidelines on the Handling of Cheaters in Medical Doctors’ Professional Qualifying Examination (hereinafter referred to as the “Guidelines”), the Defendant determined the Plaintiff’s act at the time of the examination on January 7, 2019 as an unlawful act and invalidated the relevant examination, and decided to restrict the Plaintiff’s qualification for the Plaintiff’s medical specialist qualifying examination (as of January 63, 2020, No. 64th of 2021), and notified the Plaintiff of the aforementioned matters through Dental conference on January 16, 2019.

(hereinafter referred to as “each disposition of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, and entry of the whole purport of pleading in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

Whether each disposition of this case is legitimate.