1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Upon being entrusted by the Minister of Security and Public Administration pursuant to Article 8(1) and (3) of the former Administrative Justice Act (amended by Act No. 12844, Nov. 19, 2014; hereinafter “former Administrative Justice”), the Defendant conducted the second test for qualifying examination for administrative agents on October 11, 2014 (hereinafter “instant test”).

B. The method of the qualifying examination for general administrative agents among the examinations in this case is a essay and a summary written examination, consisting of four subjects (one hundred point each), namely, civil law, administrative procedure theory, office management theory, and practical law of licensed administrative agents (one hundred point each), and four questions per subject shall be set.

The criteria for passing the examination of this case are "a person whose score of each subject is not less than 40 points, and whose average score of all subjects is not less than 60 points," and where the number of successful examinees is less than 330 persons (287 general administrative officers, foreign language translation administrative officers, and three technical administrative officers: 40 persons) who have obtained not less than 40 points in all subjects within the scope of the minimum number of successful examinees, successful examinees shall be additionally determined in the order of higher average points for all subjects from among those who have obtained not less than 40 points in all subjects, and where the number of successful examinees exceeds the minimum number of successful

C. The issue of the subject of the Administrative Agent Practice Act (hereinafter “instant issue”) among the instant examinations is as follows.

1. A driving under the blood alcohol concentration of 0.15% which falls under the grounds for revocation of driver's license was discovered to B police officers.

B requested administrative disposition of revocation of driver's license to the commissioner of the district police agency who is the holder of driver's license cancellation.

On the other hand, A was classified as a person subject to the suspension of driver's license by computer input error of a policeman who works together with B, and the chief of the competent police station issued a disposition of suspension of driver's license on July 20, 2014, and A returned a driver's license.

On August 27, 2014, the commissioner of the competent district police agency requested B to cancel A's driver's license.

A seeks the revocation of a driver's license.