Plaintiff

Korea Health Personnel Licensing Examination Institute (Attorney Kim Jong-hwan, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

September 8, 2006

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2005Guhap18570 decided January 6, 2006

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s refusal to disclose information to the Plaintiff on April 6, 2005, revoked the part of the issue of all subjects related to the national examination for dentists, No. 57, 2005, as well as the part of the answer.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The text shall be as shown in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 21, 2005, the Plaintiff applied for the 57th dental national examination held on January 21, 2005 (hereinafter “instant examination”) and was subject to a disposition of failing to pass the examination after obtaining the points below 204 points, which are the passing standard.

B. On March 31, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for disclosure of the issue of the entire subjects of the above examination and the answer sheet. However, on April 6, 2005, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition that the Defendant refused disclosure pursuant to Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Act”).

【Ground for recognition】 There is no dispute

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff filed a claim for the disclosure of the information of this case to verify whether the questions of the examination of this case and the confirmation of their answers have been properly made. The plaintiff's disposition of this case is unlawful as it infringes the citizen's right to know, even though it is difficult to see that the issue of the examination of this case and its answers have been made open to the public.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Defendant was established with the aim of contributing to the development of health and medical services by promoting the specialization and qualitative improvement of national examination agencies and national examination management through the management of national health care personnel national examination and the investigation, research, and development of examination systems under health care-related Acts and subordinate statutes. The Defendant’s purpose is not only the implementation of examination affairs, but also the development and management of examination questions and the education, training, examination, and evaluation of the development members of examination questions.

(2) Prior to the implementation of the dental national examination administered by the Defendant, the questions that the Defendant requested to be drawn to experts such as university professors for each subject were accumulated in each field, and among them, the examination questions to be set up are selected, and the questions that were set up once are stored in the examination bank for a certain period of time after re-evaluation of the problems, and the problems that were not timely and variable are being carried out in the form of a problem bank to be destroyed by a separate examination, and 3,640 questions are accumulated.

(3) The dentist’s national examination evaluates the medical knowledge to be known as a dentist, and the questions for which questions have been given are as follows: (a) the examination for the response of the questions (if the number of examinees is too low in the number of persons who have indicated a correct response compared to those who have indicated a correct response to each question or is considerably high in the number of examinees who indicated a specific wrong response, prior to the presentation of successful examinees, the examination for dentists and the persons concerned) and the examination for each subcommittee (where the number of students whose answers are less than 27% higher than the examination result per each problem and the number of students whose answers are indicated in the correct response to the problem, compared to the number of students whose answers are indicated in the examination result and whose answers are less than 27% lower than the number of students whose answers are indicated in the upper 27% lower than or similar to the number of students whose answers are indicated in the lower 27% higher than that of students in the examination result, the examination for the error and change of the problems are reviewed and supplemented.

(4) In the instant examination, 364 questions were written with multiple multiple-choices and 60 points or more average, shall pass the examination.

(5) In the case of the first examination of judicial examination, public notice of administrative dismissal, and public notice of foreign affairs, the examination committee has adopted the method of setting questions in which the examination committee members can select and withdraw the examination questions. In addition, in the case of the first examination of each of the above examinations and the first examination of the court public notice of administrative dismissal, the examination committee has issued the first examination since 2001, and the examination is made public after going through the procedure of objection, and the examination is made public after final and conclusive. In addition, the examination committee allows only the applicant to peruse the answer question if the applicant applies for the perusal of the answer sheet.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence A, the first instance court's policy on legal personnel of the Ministry of Justice, the Civil Service Commission, the Supreme Court Administration's fact-finding results, the whole purport of arguments

D. Determination

(1) Article 9(1)5 of the Act provides that information pertaining to testing (hereinafter referred to as "testing information") which, if disclosed, has considerable grounds to believe that the disclosure may seriously obstruct the fair performance of duties or the research and development of the business, may not be disclosed. Here, whether disclosure as testing information causes significant impediment to the fair performance or research and development of the business shall be determined individually by taking into account the legislative intent of the Information Disclosure Act and the testing information disclosure Act, the nature and contents of the relevant testing and evaluation act, the increase in the business due to the disclosure, and the ripple effect on the disclosure (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du6114, Mar. 14, 2003).

(2) In principle, the Information Disclosure Act provides that the public institution shall disclose information held and managed by the public institution. The purpose of the Act is to ensure that the public institution’s disclosure of information is to ensure that the public institution’s possession and management of information is to select persons with necessary professional knowledge, knowledge, and practical ability in the field concerned and that the public institution will contribute to the protection of people’s lives, freedom, property, etc. by allowing them to engage in a specialized field, and that the examination management is conducted through a complex process such as setting questions or setting questions and giving marks, and that the examination is conducted through a complex process such as the selection of problems and giving marks, and that the same kind of affairs are repeated in the future, taking into account the aspects of the nature that the same kind of affairs are repeated in the future, the examination shall not be disclosed if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the fair and appropriate performance of its affairs or the research and development of the examination problem is significantly hindered. However, it shall be deemed that the examination is made to disclose information related to the examination.

(3) As seen earlier, as long as the examination of this case adopts the problem bank system, it is expected that the disclosure of the examination problem will become somewhat difficult to re-examine the problem identical with or similar to the issuing issue.

① However, in preparing multiple-choice questions such as the examination of this case, questions may be prepared in various ways within the general level of applicants so that applicants can clearly recognize the degree of the questions. In organizing such selective questions, various problems may be studied and developed by combining various items. ② According to Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Service Act, the head of the national examination management agency commissions the examination members from among those with professional knowledge per subject subject each time of national examination. The purpose of the national examination is the development and management of the examination questions, the examination and application research projects related to the development and administration of the examination questions, the examination and evaluation of the problems, the education and training of the development committee members. ③ Even if the examination method is a bank method, it is difficult to adopt a modified examination bank method which does not give more questions continuously after the examination questions are put into the examination bank, ④ It is difficult to see that the examination examination and examination questions of this case are inappropriate to open the examination questions to the public only when the examination and examination questions of this case are corrected and notified differently from the examination questions of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition rejecting the disclosure of the examination questions and the answer questions of the 57th dentist's national examination is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so it is so decided as per Disposition by accepting the plaintiff's appeal and cancelling the disposition of this case.

Judges Cho Jong-ok (Presiding Judge)