[1] In a case where "a person who falls short of the qualification for support, a person who makes a false entry, alteration, or other wrongful act in documents submitted," and in a case where another person who is closely related to the applicant has committed an unlawful act on behalf of the applicant, the meaning of "unlawful act" as referred to in this context, and whether the applicant constitutes "other wrongful act" as defined in the above recruitment outline (affirmative)

[2] The nature of the right to decide admission at an admission examination (=a discretionary act) and its limit

[3] The case holding that even if the applicant was not aware of the parent's improper act to pass the university entrance examination at all or even if there was no such improper act, the applicant's success in the examination is certain, there is no error of law as to balancing interest in the measures taken by the university to pass the examination and to revoke the entrance examination on the ground of the above improper act

[1] In the course of the recruitment test for new students of a university, one of the matters related to the screening, where the false entry, alteration, or other improper act in the documents to be submitted (including the delegated documents) shall be deemed to have been rejected, and even if such fact is confirmed later, the passing or entrance shall be revoked even after entering the university. Here, unlawful act refers to all unlawful acts related to the examination which harm or is likely to harm the fairness of the entrance examination, and if such unlawful act does not affect the passing, it shall be deemed to be void. In light of the legislative spirit and purport of each provision of Article 34 of the Higher Education Act and Articles 31 and 34 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and the purport of the above recruitment brief for achieving fairness and objectivity at the time of entrance into the university, it is reasonable to deem that the applicant who is entitled to receive the benefit of such unlawful act is also a person who has failed to pass the examination, as well as the applicant who has committed a fraudulent act for another person closely related to the applicant.

[2] The pertinent educational institution’s discretionary act that can be freely determined by comprehensively considering the character, qualities, academic background, knowledge, etc. necessary to achieve the educational purpose within the scope of the pertinent statutes or school regulations, such as the determination of success or failure to pass an examination for the selection of an applicant for admission, or the qualification for admission, method of selection, etc., is unlawful if it considerably deviates from or abused discretionary power.

[3] The case holding that even if the applicant was not aware of the parent's improper act to pass the university entrance examination at all or even if there was no such improper act, the applicant's success in the examination is certain, there is no error of law as to balancing interest in the measures taken by the university to pass the examination and to revoke the entrance examination on the ground of the above improper act

[1] Article 34 of the Higher Education Act, Articles 31 and 34 of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act / [2] Article 34 of the Higher Education Act, Articles 31 and 34 of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act / [3] Article 31 of the Constitution, Article 34 of the Higher Education Act, Articles 31 and 34 of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu3284 delivered on December 24, 1991 (Gong1992, 704) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Da3200 delivered on July 22, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2639)

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

School Foundation (Law Firm Rate, Attorney Kim Jin-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Na75356 decided March 28, 2006

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

No. 6 of the facts related to the screening among regular examinations conducted by the defendant at Egyman's University in 2004 provides that "any false entry, alteration, or other wrongful act in the documents submitted (including delegation documents) shall be rejected, and if such fact is confirmed later, the passing or entrance shall be revoked even after entering the examination." Here, the term "illegal act" refers to all unlawful acts concerning the examination which harm the fairness of the entrance examination or are likely to harm the fairness of the entrance examination, and if such act does not affect the passing, its passing shall be invalidated (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu3284 delivered on December 24, 191, etc.), and Article 34 of the Higher Education Act, Article 31 and Article 34 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the purport of the above recruitment procedure in order to achieve fairness and objectivity at the time of university admission, etc. Thus, if an applicant is deemed to have failed to pass the examination, it shall be deemed that there is a special reason to believe that the applicant's passing of the examination is also an unlawful act.

According to the facts duly admitted by the court below, Non-party 1, the father of the plaintiff, delivered money and valuables of KRW 57 million to Non-party 2, etc., who was a professor of Egyman's University (Ban college name omitted) and the professor of Egyman's University in 2004, who was a member of the examination for the entrance examination of new students, along with an unlawful solicitation, to pass the plaintiff in the course of the entrance examination of this case. Thus, with respect to the plaintiff who is the applicant who is the father of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was not aware of such fraudulent act at all or did not affect the plaintiff's success, there is a reason for failure to pass the recruitment test, regardless of whether

In addition, the examination for selecting applicants for admission is a discretionary act that can be freely determined in consideration of the character, qualities, academic background, knowledge, etc. necessary to achieve the educational purpose within the scope of the pertinent statutes or school regulations. If such act seriously deviates from or abused discretionary power (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da3200, Jul. 22, 1997). However, the autonomy of university should be respected with respect to the decision of passing or revoking admission in accordance with the standards for inappropriate admission prescribed by the university and college itself to the extent that it does not infringe upon the right of applicants to receive education (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da3200, Jul. 22, 1997). It is necessary for public interest such as equity in university admission examinations that can be realized by the passing of the instant case and the fair operation of university admission systems. Thus, even if the plaintiff was unable to know such unlawful act as the plaintiff's assertion, or even if Nonparty 2's evaluation score was fully excluded from the plaintiff's total admission.

The reasoning of the court below is just in its conclusion that the plaintiff's passing of this case and the revocation of admission are legitimate, and the court below did not err by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to wrongful interpretation, etc. as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)