[1] In a case where the President of the National Health Center determines the requirements and methods for the evaluation of herb medication tests and notifies applicants thereof, whether the requirements and methods may be assessed against a specific applicant in a way different from those set in advance (negative)

[2] Whether it becomes the basis for evaluation to state the examination number in accordance with the guidelines for preparing the examination number presented in the examination under the above / [1] (affirmative)

[3] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that where the marking standard for making a decision is sufficiently notified to the applicants for the pertinent oriental medicine preparation qualifying examination, the measure of making a decision on the answer card without indicating the above examination number is lawful

[1] According to Article 4 (1) of the Addenda of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act and Article 2 (1), (4) and (7) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, the Director of the National Health Center, the agency conducting the relevant herb drug preparation, shall determine the guidelines for preparing a written response to the applicant, including the examination number entry guidelines with respect to the requirements and methods of the relevant herb drug preparation, and notify the applicant thereof. On the other hand, in order to give the applicant an equal opportunity and to ensure objectivity and fairness of evaluation, the relevant examination shall not be assessed by any other requirement or method different from that set by him/her, in order to ensure objectivity and fairness of evaluation, unless there are special circumstances.

[2] It cannot be deemed that, in the pertinent herb drug preparation test requiring a high level of attention and accuracy, omission of an examination number in accordance with the guidelines for preparation of examination numbers in accordance with the characteristics of the test does not constitute the standard for evaluation.

[3] The case affirming the judgment below that as long as the President of the National Health Center, which is the institution implementing the oriental medicine preparation qualifying examination, did not indicate the OM test number in conducting the above examination, the answer card was determined to be processed at a time, and as long as such marking standards were sufficiently notified to the applicants for the above oriental medicine preparation qualifying examination, the above national health center did not mark the applicant's answer by the process, and the measure taken as a result of the decision cannot be deemed lawful and contrary to the good faith principle.

[1] Article 4 (1) of the Addenda of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (Ad January 7, 1994), Article 2 (1), (4), and (7) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (Ad July 7, 1994) / [2] Article 4 (1) of the Addenda of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (Ad January 7, 1994), Article 2 (1), (4), and (7) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (Ad July 7, 1994) / [3] Article 4 (1) of the Addenda of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (Ad January 7, 1994), Article 2 (1), (4), and (7) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (Ad July 7, 1994)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13771 delivered on July 10, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2129)

Plaintiff 1 and four others (Attorneys Kim Young-sub, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The President of the National Health Center

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu43975 delivered on September 24, 1997

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 4 (1) of the Addenda of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act and Article 2 (1), (4) and (7) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, the defendant, as the institution administering the herb medication of this case, shall determine the guidelines for preparing the response to the applicant, including the examination number entry guidelines with respect to the requirements and methods of the test, and notify the applicant thereof. Once the examination is notified, in order to give the applicant an equal opportunity, and to ensure objectivity and fairness of evaluation, the examination shall be bound by the evaluation requirements and methods determined by him/her, and the examination shall not be evaluated by any other requirements or methods than those determined by him/her at his/her discretion, and it shall not be deemed that the examination is not based on the examples of examination numbers prepared in the examination of herb medication of this case where high level of attention and accuracy are required.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the defendant, as a pharmacist's license holder, applied for the examination for herb medication which was conducted on May 19, 196 pursuant to Article 4 (1) of the Addenda of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Act No. 4 of Jan. 7, 1994), the above examination was divided into one-time written examination with the subject of this school science, pest control, and one-class oriental medicine preparation ability, and the two-time practical examination with the subject of which are 50 or more points. At least 40 percent of the total number, the examination marking is based on the computerized marking of the plaintiffs, and the defendant did not have an obligation to mark the examination number and name on the examination card, or entered the examination marking number in the examination marking of the plaintiff's examination in the examination marking guidelines, and the defendant did not have an obligation to mark the plaintiff's examination marking number and the examination marking number in accordance with the examination marking guidelines and the examination marking guidelines that the plaintiff's examination applicant's name was invalid.

The above judgment of the court below is just in light of the above legal principles, and there is no error as to the issue.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)