205Nu26764 2005 shall be calculated by calculating the standard score and percentage of the College Ability Test in the year 2005.

Invalidity of Disposition, etc.

1. Cautions;

Daejeon Western Dong-dong

Since it is a minor, the father or mother of parental authority;

2. ○○○

Busan District Court Decision 201Hun-gu, Busan District Court Decision 201

3. Error; and

Seoul Guro-gu 1dong

[Defendant-Appellant]

President of the Korean Curriculum Evaluation Board

Litigation Performers;

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2005Guhap173 decided Oct. 25, 2005

June 8, 2006

July 20, 2006

1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The decision of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's decision in 2005 shall also be revoked in calculating the percentage of the College Ability Test.

confirm that it is effective.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's reasoning for this case is as follows: "The revocation" part of the 20th 4th son of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the application of the following provisions: Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts used for repair.

B. Determination

(1) Defects in administrative acts are divided into unfair acts that are committed in violation of laws and regulations or laws and that are not most reasonable to the public interest in discretionary acts. Improper administrative acts are not subject to administrative litigation but can be subject to ex officio revocation and administrative appeal. However, illegal acts can be subject to appeal litigation.

On the other hand, if the defect in the administrative act is a serious violation of laws and regulations and it is apparent in appearance, it shall be null and void, and if it does not reach it, the defect in the grounds for invalidation in the appeal litigation, such as invalidation under Article 4 subparagraph 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, is naturally limited to the defect constituting illegality. In the case of an unjust act, it constitutes a legitimate disposition within the discretionary authority, i.e., as long as it does not fall under deviation or abuse of discretionary authority, and therefore there is no room for the invalidity of the act. (2) According to the facts acknowledged earlier, in the examination in the year 2005, the grade which is subject to the notification of the results of the examination is limited to the standard score, the percentage and grade, and the original score is excluded from the subject, and the original score is less than the basic material for calculating the standard score, and the meaning of the results obtained by the examination having external effect has become null and void.

The defendant stated the standard point in 2005 as the number rounded off from the first decimal place according to the "basic plan for admission screening of universities or colleges", and the white part also is calculated on the basis of the standard point marked in the fixed number as above, and then indicated it again as the number rounded off the first decimal place. Even though there are differences in the original point in this process, the same standard point may be the same and different standard point may be the different standard point depending on the unexpected circumstances where the datum is located in any section. Thus, since the white part is calculated based on the standard point, if there is no distorted phenomenon in the white part if there is no different standard point, it is also distorted in the case where there is no distortion of the white part, but the standard point is the same.

In particular, even if the number of doors of the Scientific Search Center or the Social Search Organization is merely 20 parts and there is only one point in the original score, it seems that there are many cases where there is a substantial difference in the original score. However, in case where the difference of one point in the original score is in the comparison of the point with the standard point with the same difference, it is denied in the white part, while in case where there is a difference in the section with the standard point with the difference, it brings about an unreasonable result that reflects the difference as it is even in the white part.

(3) In 2005, an examinee may arbitrarily choose the territory/subject, not all areas/subjects, and may apply for the examination. A university also only requires the grade of the area/subject that meets the characteristics of the university and recruitment unit. The original score is directly affected by the difficulty of difficulty, and if the subject is easily drawn to a specific area/subject, the examinee who selects the specific area/subject is given a high score, and if it is difficult to do so, he is given a low score, and thus, he is given a low score if it is difficult to do so. Thus, in the case of a simple curriculum as a datum, it results in unreasonable results arising from the difference of points depending on the incidental circumstances that make it difficult to do so.

Unlike this, in the case of distribution converting the distribution of datum water into the average and standards set by the territory or by the selective subject, if it is based on the standard score, which indicates any location corresponding to that set by either the territory or the selective subject, or the depositer indicating an individual's relative order in the territory/subject, it is able to reasonably compare the results of the examination in the multiple-choice test system. Therefore, it is inevitable in the multiple-choice test system that the calculation of the standard score and the grade on the white part, which are not the datum value, is inevitable in the multi-choice test system, and in detail, it is possible to determine the standard score and the percentage in any way, which is within the discretion of the defendant.

On the other hand, the introduction of the percentage point system as above is intended to reasonably compare the results of examinees regardless of the difference of difficulty between the regions and subjects through the relative heating of examinees. As such, in calculating the standard point and the percentage point, the defendant should choose a reasonable method so that the number of datum points is so different as much as possible so that examinees are not evaluated in the same numerical value. In calculating the standard point from the original point, it cannot be concluded that the defendant has selected a method of calculating the percentage point based on that standard point is the most appropriate method for the above purpose. In the past, by notifying the examinees of the original point other than the standard point, the original point is also rated as the original point with external effect and the percentage point is not disclosed, but the original point is not the standard point with the original point with the original point with the original point, but the original point with the original point with the original point with the original point with the original point with the purpose of calculating the percentage point with the original point with the original point with the intention of calculating the percentage point with the original point with the original point obtained by the defendant.

However, in 2005, various screening data were used not only in 2005 but also in college admission circumstances such as grade, essay, interview, etc. The defendant calculated standard points and white part of the examination by the same method as this case, and there is room to evaluate that the examination students who have acquired different datum points from each other within a certain section include policy decisions to enable preferential selection using screening data within a certain range. The standard points and white part of the calculation are calculated by rounded off the first decimal part of the small number, and the calculation is already publicly notified in advance by the standard points made up of the small number of the first place of the examination. In light of the above, even if the defendant's standard points and white part of the examination were notified to applicants for the examination, and the defendant's act of calculating the above 200 percentage points cannot be seen as having been conducted by the defendant's act of calculating the above 200 percentage points based on the standard points and the examination result of each school year, the defendant's act of calculating the above 200 percentage points cannot be seen as having been conducted by the above 20000 percentage points.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant's disposition of calculating the percentage of the above water testing is unlawful, and thus the degree of the defect is grave and obvious, or that the defendant's right to receive equal education and the right to pursue happiness are violated according to the principle or ability of equality as provided in the Constitution is without merit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and without merit, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

presiding judge Kim Yong-hwan

Demotion

Maternity