205 Gaz. 45655 Compensation (as stated)

205 Gohap67792 (Consolidation) Compensation for damages (as a result thereof)

1. west ○○;

2. Kim○-○

3. ○○.

4. △△;

1. Korea;

2. Human Resources Development Service;

April 12, 2007

May 17, 2007

1. The plaintiff (designated parties)'s claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (the appointed party).

The Defendants include the Plaintiff (designated parties, hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) ○○, Kim○, and Lee ○○.

Attached 1 List of Appointeds 2, including each selected person and the Plaintiff, listed in the attached Table 1 List of Appointeds

3,000,000 won for each of the designated parties described and the next day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case

J. D. 20% interest per annum until the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 10 by Eul, or Eul, unless there is a dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings:

A. The plaintiffs and the designated parties applied for the qualifying examination for the second licensed real estate agents (hereinafter referred to as the "examination of this case") on November 14, 2004 and failed to pass the examination. The defendant Human Resources Development Service of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Corporation") is a public corporation entrusted with the execution of the examination of this case by each Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or Do governor pursuant to Article 37-2 subparagraph 2 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act (amended by Act No. 7638 of July 29, 2005 and Article 41 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Brokerage Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18712 of Feb. 19, 2005).

B. The method of the instant examination is a multiple-choice test; the first examination (the subject of the examination is an essay test); the first examination (the first examination is an essay test); the 40-day examination time; the second examination (the second examination is an 80-minute); the second examination (the subject of the examination is a real estate brokerage and brokerage practice (the third subject); the Acts and subordinate statutes related to the publication of real estate; the Acts and subordinate statutes related to the publication of real estate; the Real Estate Tax Act (the fourth subject); the 40-minute examination time; the 120-minute examination time).

C. Meanwhile, Articles 11(1), 17(1), and 17(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Brokerage Act put emphasis on the verification of knowledge and degree of knowledge necessary to perform brokerage business, and put 100 points on the perfect score of each subject, put at least 40 points on an average of at least 60 points in all subjects, and the secondary examination put on an emphasis on the verification of practical ability, put at least 40 points in each subject and at least an average of at least 60 points in all subjects on a perfect score of 100 points in each subject, and determine a successful applicant: Provided, That where the head of the agency conducting the examination deems it necessary for the supply and demand of a licensed real estate agent and publicly notifies the pre-determined number of persons to be selected after a resolution of the examination committee, he/she shall determine a successful applicant in the order of high score in all subjects within the scope of the number of persons to be selected

2. Determination on the plaintiffs' claims

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs are obligated to exercise discretion in the contents and composition of the examination questions of this case so that they can properly evaluate the ability of the examinees in accordance with the purpose of the execution of the examination of this case, and even though they are obligated to manage the examination questions in advance so that the examination questions can be fairly conducted, they are neglected to manage the preparation of the examination questions of this case and the selection of correct answers. ① The examination questions of this case are leaked in advance, ② there are a number of problems in deviation from the scope of the qualifying examination of licensed real estate agents, ② the examination questions of this case are being set out in advance, ② the examination questions of this case are set out in advance, and the examination examination of this case are set up only difficult to be unsatisfy within the given time, ③ some of the examination examiners are selected and commissioned as members of the examination committee, ③ their excessive questions are set, and the examination questions are set up in advance, and the examination questions are set up in 00 for each of the defendants, so that they suffered mental suffering from each of the above 300 questions.

B. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

Article 8 (1) of the Real Estate Brokerage Act provides that "any person who intends to become a licensed real estate agent shall pass the qualifying examination for licensed real estate agents implemented by the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, and Do governor, in principle, shall pass the qualifying examination for licensed real estate agents." Article 8 (2) of the same Act provides that "The Minister of Construction and Transportation may directly conduct the examination or require the Mayor/Do governor to obtain prior approval for the preparation of examination questions and the examination date", which provides that "The Minister of Construction and Transportation may become the head of the examination agency of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation in person by prescribing that the Minister may become the head of the examination agency of the real estate brokerage business in the form of the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, and Do governor pursuant to Article 8 (1) of the Real Estate Brokerage Act, since the Minister of Construction and Transportation may not recognize the fact that the real estate agent of this case directly entrusted the management of the real estate agent of this case by the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, and Do governor under Article 37 (2) of the Real Estate Brokerage Act.

In addition, in order to deliberate and resolve the qualifications for applying for the examination for licensed real estate agents, the method of examination, the number of persons to be selected, the preparation and marking of examination questions, and the decision of the successful candidates under Article 12 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Brokerage Act, there is a Licensed Real Estate Agent Examination Committee in the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and the Minister of Construction and Transportation has no dispute between the parties, but the fact that the Minister is in charge of the chairperson's position is being established in the Ministry of Construction and Transportation. However, the establishment of the above committee in the Ministry of Construction and Transportation is for the purpose of establishing uniform standards related to the implementation of the licensed real estate agent examination conducted nationwide by the respective Mayors/Do Governors, and the above committee has the nature of an advisory agency to deliberate and decide on the overall matters concerning the examination conducted

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion against the defendant Republic of Korea on the premise that the Minister of Construction and Transportation under the defendant Republic of Korea conducted and supervised the examination of this case is no longer necessary to examine further.

C. As to the assertion of prior outflow of examination issues on the judgment on the claim against the defendant Corporation (1)

The plaintiffs asserted that Defendant Corporation did not isolate members preparing the examination questions of this case from outside for about two months from the date of the examination examination to the date of the examination, and that there was negligence that part of the examination questions of this case has been leaked in advance by making lectures related to the examination of this case or writing the maternity examination issue.

The defendant Corporation is an institution which is entrusted with the execution of the examination of this case and prepares the examination of this case, and is obligated to thoroughly manage the examination of this case from the date of preparing the examination of this case to the date of the examination of this case. The defendant Corporation has a duty to thoroughly manage the examination of this case from the date of the examination of this case to the date of the examination of this case. The fact that the examination examiners of this case are not isolated from the outside from September 17, 2004, which is the date of execution of the examination of this case from November 14, 2004, which is the date of execution of the examination of this case.

However, in light of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 13-2, Eul evidence Nos. 13-2, Eul evidence Nos. 14, and the whole purport of the arguments, the examination of this case is being conducted in a way that the problem selection committee members will finally draw up the problem pool (pool), examine the problems selected by the review committee members, and determine the final problem of the examination of this case. ② However, the defendant Corporation takes a way that the examination committee members preparing the examination of this case can draw up the examination of this case and receive the examination of this case from Sep. 17, 2004 to the enforcement date of the examination of this case.

14. On the other hand, instead of selecting a method of isolation from the outside, the members preparing questions shall be referred to as "matters for preparing questions" so as to enhance the credibility of the qualification examination for licensed real estate agents, emphasizing that the security of the problem such as lectures and publication of examination questions prepared and submitted by the members preparing questions should not be impeded. When it is inevitable to refer to the issues that have been published in the city or the issues that have been laid out in the city, the question questions should be corrected and supplemented, and the examination questions should not be leaked from the members preparing questions.

In light of the fact that it is difficult for the problem selection committee members to draw up a written oath, and excludes the same and similar problems recorded in the examination book recently published, especially when the examination committee members drawn up, puts emphasis on the fact that the same or similar problems shall not be set up in the examination book, and then, during the period from November 2, 2004 to November 14, 2004, the examination committee members and the examination committee members are isolated from the outside, and the examination committee members are selected the final problem to be set up in this case, and the examination committee members are selected to examine the selected problem. In light of the fact that it is recognized that the examination committee members are not in reality or separately isolated for two months or more from the examination date to the examination date from the examination date to the examination date, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is no negligence in the examination examination committee of this case.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to acknowledge that part of the examination questions of this case were written by the examination examiners of this case, or that the examination questions of this case were leaked in advance due to the intention or negligence of the examination examiners of this case or Defendant Corporation.

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' above arguments are without merit.

(2) Regarding the argument that there was a failure to set questions (A) as to the examination of this case from the range of examination and the degree of difficulty of the examination (A), the plaintiffs also set up a lot of problems deviating from the scope of examination of licensed real estate agents without connection with the above real estate brokerage affairs, and as the examination method was not prepared from the viewpoint of applicants, there is no adequate way to regulate the difficulty of examination so that examinees can not be able to evaluate their ability within the given examination time, the defendant Corporation argues that there was a failure to set questions in the adjustment of difficulty of the examination in the examination of this case. (b) In the preparation of examination as an administrative act, the questions were set within the scope of the law and regulations, and the questions were set up within the scope of 7 years after the examination of the above questions and answers, and the examination of the questions and answers of this case were set up within the scope of 10 days after the examination of the questions and answers of this case, and there is no need to set up the scope of discretion and its scope of discretion in the examination of this case.

On the other hand, it is difficult to conclude that there is a duty to maintain a certain number of successful examinees and to pass a certain number of successful examinees, since there is a large range of discretion to determine the appropriate number of successful examinees by controlling the degree of difficulty of the examination according to the current status of supply and demand or policy decision in the examination which generally selects a certain number of successful examinees, not the examination which selects a certain number of successful examinees, but the examination which generally selects a certain number of successful examinees, and that there is a high level of professional knowledge, ability and experience in the examination questions.

Based on the above, a wide range of discretion is inevitable. In particular, since there is a relative and abstract nature that may vary depending on the tendency of examiners, academic background, knowledge level and type of examination, the difficulty of applicants is not easy to regulate, and according to the evidence Nos. 4, B or 10, the examination of this case is a test that can be applied by all adults aged 20 years or older, and it is difficult to determine the average level of applicants for the examination of this case and adjust their degree of difficulty. (3) The examination of this case is difficult to recognize that the examination of this case's number of applicants for the examination of this case's number of applicants for the examination of this case's 13-1, 3, B or 14-2, the examination of this case's number of applicants for the examination of this case's degree of difficulty is difficult to determine the minimum number of applicants for the examination of this case's number of applicants for the examination of this case's number of applicants for the examination of this case's number of applicants for the examination of this case's number of applicants for the examination of this case's number of difficulty.

In addition, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 4, according to the whole purport of argument, the Korea Land Corporation newly entrusted with the execution of the examination of this case, conducted an additional test only for those who failed to pass the examination of this case on May 22, 2005. The passing rate is 34.5% based on the number of applicants for the examination of this case, and the passing rate of the examination of this case was considerably higher than the passing rate of the preliminary examination of this case, and the plaintiffs also were given an opportunity to apply for the additional examination of this case, and most of the plaintiffs passed the above additional examination. According to the above facts of recognition, according to the above facts, the defendant Corporation failed to the difficulty test of the examination of this case, and the plaintiffs suffered mental suffering.

Even if there is a reasonable ground to view that such mental suffering has been sufficiently compensated for that reason.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

(3) As to the proposal for questions, such as double commission and multiple answers, of the members for preparation, selection, and examination

(A) Lastly, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendant Corporation has neglected to ensure the fairness and objectivity of the examination by re-commissioning some of the members preparing the examination questions as members of the examination committee, and by preparing multiple answers or errors in the preceding paragraph in the examination in the examination of this case.

(B) First of all, according to the purport of the oral argument in the statement in Gap evidence No. 4 as to the plaintiffs' above argument, it shall be examined in the following order: 15 of the total 48 members commissioned as members preparing the examination in this case; and 4 of the examination members shall be selected for each member preparing the examination in order to select the issue of distribution by each member preparing the examination; and 8 of the members re-commissioned selection and examination members shall be selected from 6 to 12 of the examination questions. However, in light of the degree and direction of preparing the examination members, it shall be reflected to some extent in the process of selecting the issue; and in light of the need to select a problem similar to the scope of preparing the examination, it shall be re-commissioned by the members preparing the examination in this case; and there shall be no evidence to acknowledge that there is a lack of discretion to recognize that there is a problem of distribution by each member preparing the examination committee.

2) Next, with respect to the wrong questions such as the plaintiffs' multiple answers, when the questions can vary by his subjective interpretation or viewpoint, theories, specific teaching materials, etc. or when the questions are to be drawn up which the purpose of setting is not clearly understood even though the questions are interpreted as the strength and ability of the general examinee who applied for the examination in question, the question per se itself is inappropriate, and when the questions are to be drawn up with the intention of setting the questions clearly and different answers are to be selected in the correct answer, or other answers are to be recognized except for the questions selected by the examiners, such questions or answers shall be illegal since they go beyond the scope and limit of discretion recognized in the process of setting the objective questions and are abused and abused.

In full view of the purport of the statements and arguments in the Health Team, Eul evidence Nos. 9-1 and 9-2 as to the instant case, the defendant Corporation received opinions on the answers to the instant examination on November 15, 2004 after publishing the preliminary answers to the instant examination, and examined the accuracy of the answers to the issues received in the opinion by commissioning experts in the relevant field as a regular inquirer, and upon announcing the final answers on December 16, 2004, it may treat the 15 of the total 200 questions of the instant preliminary and secondary examinations as multiple answers or answers, and recognize the fact that the successful applicant has decided to pass the examination accordingly.

According to the above facts, although it can be confirmed that there was a considerable error in the preparing and selecting a correct answer as above, even if there was an error in the preparing and selecting a correct answer, if the examination of this case adopting the absolute evaluation method, it is hard to see that the plaintiffs suffered any disadvantage or mental suffering due to the preparing and selecting a correct answer, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs suffered any disadvantage or suffered any mental suffering due to the plaintiffs' preparing and selecting a correct answer.

3) Ultimately, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jae-soo

Judges Cho Jong-tae

Judges Hong-soo