Taking effect of administrative action as a result of the rejection of doctorate application by the graduate school committee at Seoul University

The defendant's disposition dismissing the plaintiff's application for a doctor's degree is valid and issued if the plaintiff was notified of the resolution of the above committee under the name of the graduate school of the above university.

Enforcement Decree of the Education Act (Presidential Decree No. 6331), Articles 124, 128, 132, 129, 133, and 134

Supreme Court Decision 75Nu63 delivered on June 8, 1976 (Kaad 11290; Supreme Court Decision 24Na256; Decision No. 1181 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Decision No. 540-9231 delivered on June 8, 197)

Plaintiff

Seoul National University President

Supreme Court Decision 71Nu49 delivered on October 12, 1971

The defendant's dismissal of the plaintiff's application for doctor's degree against the plaintiff on July 22, 1969 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. We examine the main defense of this case.

The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff's application for a doctor's degree in this case was still subject to any administrative disposition, the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case is defective as to the requirements for the lawsuit in this case and its defect cannot be corrected due to its nature.

살피건대, 교육법시행령(1972.8.26. 대통령령 제6331호) 제124조 에는 학위는 총장 또는 학장이 수여하되 박사학위를 수여한 경우에는 문교부장관에게 보고하여야 한다 ... 라고 규정하고 있고, 그 제128조 와 제129조 에는 박사학위는 박사학위 논문심사와 구술시헙에 합격한 자로서 대학원 위원회에서 학위수여결정을 받은 자에게 한하여 수여하며, 대학원 위원회는 총학장이 지정하는 위원 5인이상으로 조직하되 그 위원장은 대학원장이 되며, 대학원 위원회의 의결은 위원 3분의 2이상의 찬성이 있어야 한다라고 규정하고 있고, 다시 그 제132조 에는 대학원 위원회는 대학교수 또는 사계의 권위자중에서 5인 이상의 심사위원을 선정하여 박사학위논문을 심사케하며 그 심사의 통과는 심사위원 5분의 4이상의 찬성으로서 결정한다라고 규정하고 있고, 그 제133조 와 제134조 를 보면, 심사위원은 대학원 위원회에, 대학원 위원회는 총학장에게 각 그 심사결과 및 그 의결결과를 각 보고하도록 규정하고 있는 바, 위 규정들을 종합하여 보면, 박사학위를 수여하는 권한은 총학장에게 있다할 것이고, 학위신청자가 총학장으로부터 그 학위를 수여받음에 있어서는 그 전제로 첫째로, 심사위원에서의 논문심사 통과 및 각종시험에 합격하여야 하며, 둘째로 대학원 위원회의 학위수여결정을 받아야 하고, 마지막으로 총학장으로부터 학위를 수여받는 일련의 과정을 거치도록 되어 있으며, 총학장은 정당한 사유가 없는한 위 대학원 위원회의 의결에 쫓아야 하는바, 그렇다면 대학원 위원회의 학위수여에 관한 가부결정은 학위에 관한한 그 최종적 처분인 의미를 갖는 것이라고 할 것이고, 학위신청자와의 관계에 있어서는 그 위원회가 학위수여를 가결하는 경우가 아닌 부결하는 결의를 할 때에는 학위수여절차가 없어지므로 그 부결사실을 직접 신청자등 외부인에게 통고할 수 있는 지위에 있다고 보지못할 바도 아닌바 그를 이 사건에 비추어 보면, 원고가 1967.11.9. 피고에 대하여 박사학위수여신청을 하면서 같은 날짜로 피고 대학교에 위 박사학위신청의 주논문으로서 "복합의문사 논고-고전의 올바른 해석을 위하여"와 그 부논문으로서 "맹자곡속장신해" 및 "도문에 대하여"를 제출하였던 사실은 당사자사이에 다툼이 없고, 성립에 다툼이 없는 을 1,2호증, 을10호증의 기재에 의하면, 피고 대학교 대학원 위원회에서는 1969.7.18.자로 원고의 위 박사학위신청 논문심사결과를 부결하는 내용의 의결을 하였으며, 1969.7.22. 이에 기하여 서울대학교 대학원명의로 원고에 대하여 "귀하가 신청한 박사학위 신청논문에 대하여 대학원 위원회에서 심의한 결과 부결키로 결의하였기 통지합니다" (을 제10호증)라는 내용의 통지서를 발송하였던 사실을 인정할 수 있고 달리 반증이 없는바, 대학원장이 대학원 위원회의 위원장이 된다는 점 및 앞에서 본 대학원 위원회의 지위와 이 사건 환송전 제8차 변론기일에서 피고 자신이 문제된 본건의 박사학위수여 거부처분을 직접 행한 것이라고 자인하고 있는 점과 변론의 전취지(이사건 환송판결을 한 상고심 법원에서도 직권조사사항인 위 처분이 피고가 행한 것인지 여부에 관하여는 아무런 언급이 없이 본안에 관하여 판단하고 그를 당원에 환송하였다)등을 종합하면, 위 1969.7.22.자로 원고에게 발송한 서울대학교 대학원명의의 본건 처분은 학위수여권자인 피고가 위 대학원 위원회를 시켜서 이사건 박사학위의 신청자인 원고에 대하여 그 학위수여를 거부하는 행정처분을 고지한 것이라고 못볼바 아니므로 피고읜 본안전항변은 그 이유가 없다고 할 것이다.

2. We examine the merits.

A. On November 9, 1967, the plaintiff applied for a doctor's degree of 1967.11. 1. 1. 9 with the above 1's doctor's degree of 5's degree "for the correct interpretation of the complex," and the above 1's dissertation as 'master' and 1'. The above facts are as follows: Gap's 4; Gap's 5's 6; Eul's 8's 6's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 6's 9's 9's '6'''''s 9''''''''''''''''s 9''''''6'''''''''s 9'''s 1'6', and 9'6''6''''''''''''''''''''''''. 9'.

B. However, it is unlawful that the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s motion at the graduate school committee of Seoul National University passed the thesis examination committee and rejected the Plaintiff’s doctor’s degree despite the Plaintiff’s doctor’s degree points obtained in various examinations (foreign language and oral examinations). Accordingly, the Defendant’s refusal disposition based on illegal rejection by the above graduate school committee is also illegal. The Defendant’s decision on whether to grant a doctor’s degree is a matter of free discretion, and even if not, it is reasonable that the above committee rejected the grant of a doctor’s degree to the Plaintiff on the ground that there were considerable reasons such as (i) and (v). Thus, it is reasonable that the Plaintiff rejected the grant of this case on the ground of the above (i) through (v). Accordingly, the Defendant’s refusal disposition is legitimate.

(1) In other words, according to the correction instruction presented by the review committee of this paper, the author pointed out that the character of "the attitude of the proposal and the attitude of the proposal is extremely insufficient," etc. is pointed out, and that "the attitude of the author is deeply aware of the dignity of learning" and "the use of a speech that is impregnded with his opinion without criticism through the criticism of the interpretation and opinion of the first class scholars" is a strong expression, such as "the expression of the lack of a pattern as a student that expresses the lack of a form as a student," and then it was impossible to seriously pay attention to the value problem of the thesis as a graduate school committee.

(2) In principle, the examination of the thesis is completed within six months and reports the result to the graduate school committee. The plaintiff's examination period has been postponed two times each six months each time, and the long-term examination period which has not been transferred to the defendant university thought occurred. The plaintiff's refusal to comply with the instructions for the correction of the thesis two times during the examination period, and the plaintiff's last failure to comply with the instructions for the correction of the thesis on February 10, 69. The plaintiff submitted a document in the form of "record" to submit a document only after receiving the instructions for the correction of the thesis. The examination committee passed the examination of the paper 4:1 as a final statement resolution which did not clearly conclude the issue of the plaintiff's refusal to modify the thesis and the plaintiff's final statement which passed the examination of the paper 4:1.

(3) According to the graduate school regulations, the oral and foreign language test for a doctor’s degree applicant is a successful score of at least 60 points, but it is customary to treat the Plaintiff as a successful score of at least an average of at least 80 points in a foreign language and oral test to maintain the authority of the degree of Seoul National University, but it is merely an average of at least 69 points that the Plaintiff acquired, and thus, the Plaintiff’s oral test result cannot be acknowledged as a failure.

(4) On April 14, 1969, when the Plaintiff’s examination of the dissertation for the Plaintiff was in progress, an article stating that the Plaintiff delivered and offered gold KRW 500,000 to one of the examination examiners of the above doctor’s degree to pass the above thesis, and thus, there is a very doubtful character for the Plaintiff to enjoy the honor of the doctor’s degree.

(5) According to Article 140 of the Enforcement Decree of the Education Act and Article 15 of the Regulations on the Conferment of Degrees at Seoul University, the chief Justice, despite the duty of the Review Committee to report the summary of the thesis review and the result of the review to the graduate school committee, failing to submit the result of the review to the graduate school committee is presumed to have no intention to pass the plaintiff, and therefore, it is argued that the result of the review is a ground for rejection. Therefore, we will examine whether the graduate school committee's rejection of the grant of a doctor's degree on the grounds as seen above is justifiable.

(2) As to the above reasons for rejection (1) (2), since the above reasons for rejection were the persons selected by the graduate school committee as above, it cannot be said that the plaintiff believe that there was an ex post facto or ex post facto relationship between the examination committee and the plaintiff. Further, even if the plaintiff received instructions for correction from the committee members in the process of examination of the above thesis, and there was a part of the above written instructions for correction (No. 3), as alleged in the defendant's argument, it cannot be said that there was a value of the pertinent thesis as a part of the written instructions for correction, and that the plaintiff could not easily find that there was a value of the above thesis as a witness's 7th examination because it was against the above written instructions for correction (No. 13) and the purport of testimony and oral argument of the non-party 3.

If so, the above (1) (2) which a graduate school committee had taken as the ground for rejecting the grant of a doctor’s degree in this case cannot be a legitimate ground;

(3) As to the above reasons for rejection, the facts that the above average point that the plaintiff obtained from the above oral examination was about 60 points under Article 31(4) of the Graduate School Regulations (No. 8 of the Directive on Issuance of Documents) are about average 60 points, are without dispute between the parties, and the plaintiff's above oral examination results are about 80 points to 90 points among the above examination committee members of the thesis. The plaintiff obtained 0 points about 69 points (90-90-85-80-0) - 5 of the above oral examination, and the above average point that the plaintiff obtained from the above oral examination is about 80 points on the ground that the graduate school committee did not ignore the above graduate school regulations, and the above average point that the above oral examination is about 60 points is about 80 points or more on the ground that it is about 10 points or more for disregarding the above graduate school regulations. Thus, the plaintiff's above oral examination results should not be justified.

( ) 위 부결이유 (4)점에 관하여 보건대, 성립에 다툼이 없는 을 제5호증의 기재에 의하면, 1969.4.14.자 "동아일보"에 원고가 박사학위논문심사위원중의 한 사람에게 논문통과를 위하여 금 50만 원을 전달, 제공하여 말썽이 되었다는 내용의 신문기사가 등재되여 있었던 사실은 일응 인정할 수 있으나 피고가 이 사건에 든 전 증거에 의하더라도 원고 자신에게 위 신문기사와 같은 내용의 비위사실이 있었다고 볼만한 아무런 자료가 없으므로 대학원 위원회가 그와 같은 기사만으로서 가볍게 학위신청자인 원고의 인격을 판단한 다음 그 학위수여부결이유로 삼은 것은 그릇된 것이라고 아니볼 수 없고,

(5) According to the above reasons for rejection (5) points, the statement of No. 13 as mentioned above, and testimony of Non-Party 3 as to the above reasons for rejection, the above examination examiners prepared the "Summary of Examination" to report it to the graduate school committee after the plaintiff passed the above doctor's degree thesis submitted by the plaintiff, and the above examination summary was right to have been submitted to the graduate school committee according to the above examination result and examination result (the results of foreign language tests of the Gu and two kinds). It can be recognized that the above examination summary was not submitted due to the committee's mistake. Thus, the above examination summary cannot be acknowledged that the above examination committee did not submit the above examination summary just because of the fact that the examination committee did not have the intent to refuse the plaintiff's doctor's degree, and the above examination summary of "Dong" cannot be collected because the examination committee did not submit a doctor's degree at the graduate school, as the matters under the jurisdiction of the examination committee's opinion, it cannot be said that the committee did not grant a doctor's degree to the plaintiff.

C. Thus, a graduate school committee has the authority to decide whether to grant a doctor's degree pursuant to Article 128 of the Enforcement Decree of the Education Act, and therefore, even if the committee's decision on whether to grant a doctor's degree belongs to its discretionary matters, as in this case, the graduate school committee must decide whether to grant a doctor's degree to the plaintiff in this case where the plaintiff passed the examination of the thesis and obtained a certain pass score in various examinations, and there is no reasonable ground to refuse to grant a doctor's degree to the plaintiff. The so-called rejection of the degree without any reason to do so is illegal in violation of the above provision on the conferment of doctor's degree in the Enforcement Decree of the Education Act and the above provision on the conferment of doctor's degree in the above graduate school, and the defendant's refusal to grant the degree in this case

D. If the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is reasonable and acceptable, and the total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing Defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Kim Hong (Presiding Judge) and Park Jong-hee