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

Lee Chemical Complex (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys Kim Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

July 6, 2005

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On July 16, 2004, the president of the Ganman University operated by the Defendant confirms that the passing of the year 2004 by the Plaintiff on July 16, 2004 and the revocation of admission are invalid.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are recognized by each description of Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 and 3, and there is no reflective evidence:

A. On December 12, 2003, the Plaintiff applied for the examination in 2004 at the Einsian University operated by the Defendant (name of university and department omitted) in the regular (passer number omitted), and passed the examination score of 318 (400 points), 300 (300 points), 243.65 (30 points), 861.65 (100 points), 861.65 (100 points) among the total number of 83 persons, etc.

B. However, on July 16, 2004, the president of the Egyptian University notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff’s pass and cancellation of the Plaintiff’s admission would be based on the provision that, on the ground that Nonparty 1’s father was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in August due to the charge of breach of trust arbitration by taking unfair means against the Plaintiff’s father Nonparty 2, who was the professor of the said University, to pass the Plaintiff’s pass, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years. The year 2004 also failed to enter, alter, or reject the documents to be submitted (including delegated documents) related to regular lectures and documents (including delegated documents), and that, on the other hand, the Plaintiff’s pass and cancellation of the Plaintiff’s admission even if the facts are confirmed later (hereinafter “instant cancellation provision”).

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff's ground for claim

The plaintiff is a provision that assumes that the plaintiff is involved in the plaintiff's fraudulent act. The plaintiff was unaware of the fact of the non-party 1's breach of trust, his father, and the evaluation score did not affect the plaintiff's evaluation of the practical examination. The plaintiff obtained the result that the non-party 2 could fully pass the examination even if the non-party 2 was excluded from the plaintiff's total score, so there is no relation between the illegal act caused by the breach of trust arbitration and the plaintiff's success, and therefore, the defendant's notice of the cancellation of the admission and the plaintiff's revocation of the admission in this case is invalid.

B. Interpretation of the cancellation provision of this case

Article 34 (1) of the Higher Education Act provides that "the head of a university or college shall select students to be admitted by general screening or special screening from among those who are qualified under Article 33 (1) of the Higher Education Act." Article 31 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act provides that "the head of a university or college shall guarantee the right of all citizens to receive equal education according to their abilities, and shall ensure that elementary and secondary education is operated according to its original purpose," Article 34 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act provides that "the general screening under Article 34 of the Act shall be selected from among those who are qualified under Article 33 (1) of the Higher Education Act." Article 34 (1) of the above Act provides that "the head of a university or college shall not be allowed to receive equal education from among those who are qualified under Article 33 (1) of the above Higher Education Act." Article 31 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act provides that "any unlawful acts shall be implemented in accordance with the standards and methods for admission applicants's purpose." This case shall also be revoked or cancelled.

C. Whether the Plaintiff constitutes “other Cheating” under the instant revocation provision

(i)a fact;

The following facts are acknowledged by the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 through 6, evidence Nos. 7-1 to 49, evidence Nos. 8-1 to 37, evidence Nos. 1, 2-1 to 5, 3-1 to 4 of evidence Nos. 6, 4, 7-1 and 4 of evidence Nos. 8-1 to 7, and testimony Nos. 16, 23 and 2-1 of evidence Nos. 2 against them, and the testimony No. 1 of Non-party No. 1 is not believed, and there is no counter-proof.

(A) The Plaintiff was preparing the College Ability Test with a view to the Plaintiff’s Egrative Broadcasting Department’s history. However, when it was anticipated that the College Ability Test’s score was insufficient to understand the newspaper broadcast content, the college entrance time was determined as a Egrative University (university and department name omitted) around September 2003, which was the time point of 2-3 months prior to the university entrance time. At that time, the college entrance time was determined as a Egrative University (university and department name omitted) and the college instructors and Nonparty 4, who was in charge of the supervision of Nonparty 3 University, continued (sports name omitted) vocational guidance on one occasion from Nonparty 4 to 2-3.

(B) On December 2003, Nonparty 1, the father of the Plaintiff, introduced Nonparty 2 via Nonparty 4, who was the professor of the Ginman University (the name of the affiliated university omitted) to obtain favorable points in the practical examination. Nonparty 2 asked Nonparty 2 to request Nonparty 2 to provide the support to the Einman University (the name of the affiliated university omitted).

(다) 소외 2는 소외 1로부터 위와 같은 부탁을 받은 다음 2003. 12. 초순경 소외 3 대학교 체육관에 가서 원고의 실기연습과정을 지켜보면서 원고의 얼굴을 익히는 한편, 원고가 슛을 하는데 자꾸 바닥에 맞거나 골대에 맞자, 원고를 지도하던 소외 4에게 이화여자대학교 실기시험에서는 슛을 높이 던지면 점수를 많이 주므로 원고로 하여금 위를 겨냥해서 던지게 지도하라고 지시하고, 원고의 자세에 대하여 일러 주었으며, (학원명 생략) 이라는 곳이 이화여자대학교 (학부명 생략) 교수들이 관련된 곳이고, 그곳에는 이화여자대학교 (학부명 생략)의 실기시험종목과 동일한 코스로 연습할 수 있게 되어 있으므로 원고를 (학원명 생략)에 보내도록 지시하였다.

(D) On December 11, 2003, Nonparty 4 directed the Plaintiff in accordance with the order of Nonparty 2, and sent the Plaintiff to Nonparty 2 for both days (the name of a driving school omitted) and on December 12, 2003, so that the Plaintiff can practice in the same course as the practical skill test of the Egyman’s University (the name of a driving school omitted). However, since the Plaintiff’s attitude is changed, Nonparty 4 did not send the Plaintiff to the (the name of a driving school omitted) and continued to direct instruct the Plaintiff, and around December 14, 2003, Nonparty 4 received KRW 7 million from Nonparty 1 as an advance payment for passing the Plaintiff.

(E) Around December 2003, the Plaintiff knew Nonparty 2 to Nonparty 3’s sports center of the fact that Nonparty 2 had been aware of the Plaintiff’s practical training course as described in the foregoing paragraph (c). Nonparty 1 knew of the fact that Nonparty 2 had been aware of the fact that Nonparty 2 had been informed of the Plaintiff’s practical training course, and notified Nonparty 1 of the fact that Nonparty 2 had been informed of the directions of the practical training at the preliminary convening date of the Egrative examination at the Egrative college.

(F) On December 17, 2003, Nonparty 2 excluded Nonparty 2’s scores from Nonparty 2’s scores on the practical examination of the Egyptian University (the name of the affiliated university omitted) on December 17, 2003, because Nonparty 2, who suffered excessive scores from Nonparty 2’s scores, excluding the highest scores, 8 points from 3 points and 7 points from 1 category, became the difference between Nonparty 2’s scores. Meanwhile, Nonparty 2’s scores were reflected in the Plaintiff’s practical examination scores. Meanwhile, Nonparty 2 puts up two or less points to students with higher average scores than the Plaintiff.

(G) On December 18, 2003, Nonparty 2 told Nonparty 1 to the effect that it is not necessary to know about the Plaintiff’s action by leaving a phone, and around December 29, 2003, Nonparty 2 notified Nonparty 1 of the Plaintiff’s success on or around December 29, 2003, the date on which the successful bidder was announced, and was remitted KRW 50 million from Nonparty 5, the wife of Nonparty 1, using Nonparty 4’s deposit account (hereinafter “instant misconduct”).

(h) On the other hand, the results of the practical examination of the Egympi university (affiliated university name omitted) are assessed from 0 to 10 for each item. The examination committee members consist of 4 professors within the school and 3 outside professors. The examination committee members consist of 7 examiners, excluding the highest and lowest points for each item among the points appraised by the evaluation committee members for each item, calculated by adding 3 million won to the average of 5 persons, excluding the highest and lowest points for each item among the points appraised by the evaluation committee members for each item.

(2) Determination

In light of the above facts, although Nonparty 2 participated from the beginning in the practical examination of the Plaintiff, and added a attitude and method to obtain high points in the practical examination of the university of Epir, and introduced a private teaching institute for such practice, etc., Nonparty 2 performed the practical examination so that the Plaintiff can obtain good points in the practical examination according to the method desired by Nonparty 2. In the practical examination, it is inappropriate for the Plaintiff to obtain the highest points except for the highest points in the practical examination, and the Plaintiff to obtain the highest points in the practical examination, and at the same time, there is no possibility that the students who were able to pass the examination would have failed to pass the examination by lowering the points that are similar to those in the Plaintiff’s practical examination. In light of this, even if Nonparty 2 was aware of an unlawful act among Nonparty 2, Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 4, the Plaintiff’s selection of Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 2 cannot be determined to be excluding the Plaintiff’s practical examination from the examination examination, and thus, the Plaintiff’s selection of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 cannot be determined to be determined.

Furthermore, since the unlawful act of this case may result in the failure of other students in lieu of successful applicants by unlawful means, fairness in university admission system is seriously undermined, encourage national infinites and students in preparation for university entrance entrance system, and cause severe loss and loss to society, etc., and thus, a faculty-type and students may be infinites and students may be infinites infinites university entrance entrance entrance examination system. Thus, it is deemed that there is sufficient need to cancel the plaintiff's passing through such unlawful act. On the other hand, university entrance examination can be freely determined in consideration of the university's purpose and special circumstances within the scope prescribed by law and school regulations, and autonomy of university should be respected unless there are special circumstances, and autonomy of university can be revoked to the extent that university entrance examination does not infringe the applicant's right to receive education, and autonomy of university entrance examination of university should be revoked to the extent that it does not violate the applicant's right to undergo the education, and fair operation of university entrance examination of this case should be revoked.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, on different premise, the prior plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Dong-ho (Presiding Judge)