[1] Whether there is a legal interest in seeking revocation of a disposition of failure in the judicial examination where a person passed the first examination conducted after a disposition of failure in the first examination of the judicial examination (negative)

[2] The case holding that there was no benefit in the lawsuit pending in the court of final appeal and thus becomes illegal

[1] In full view of the provisions of Articles 5, 6, and 8 of the Decree on Judicial Examination, even if a successful applicant has passed the first examination, it is merely a prerequisite that a successful applicant can be granted the qualification to apply for the second examination and the second examination of the next meeting under Articles 6 and 8(1) of the Decree on Judicial Examination, and it does not change the legal status of a successful applicant. Thus, if a successful applicant passes the first examination newly implemented after the first failure to pass the examination, there is no legal interest to seek cancellation of the said failure.

[2] The case holding that where a lawsuit was filed to seek the cancellation of the disposition of failure to pass the first examination for the judicial examination which was newly implemented after the judgment of the court below was pronounced, the interest in the lawsuit was lost during the period of the final appeal and became illegal

[1] Articles 5, 6, and 8(1) of the Decree on Judicial Examination; Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu3209 delivered on April 7, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 187), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu955 delivered on June 30, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2630) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu4087 delivered on July 14, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2824 delivered on November 21, 1995), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu1293 delivered on November 21, 195 (Gong196, 84)

Plaintiff

Minister of Government Administration

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu20558 delivered on December 29, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed. All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal ex officio before determining them.

In full view of the provisions of Articles 5, 6, and 8 of the Decree on Judicial Examination, even if a successful applicant passes the first examination, it is merely a prerequisite that a successful applicant may be eligible to take the second examination and the second examination at the meeting under the provisions of Articles 6 and 8(1) of the Decree on Judicial Examination, and it does not change the legal status of a successful applicant. Thus, if a successful applicant passes the first examination newly implemented after the disposition of the first failure to pass the examination, it shall be deemed that there is no legal interest to seek the cancellation of the said failure disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu6867 delivered on November 9, 193).

However, according to the records, when the plaintiff applied for the first 36-time judicial examination that was enforced in 1994 and was disqualified, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the above disposition with the court below, but it can be known that the plaintiff applied for the first 37-time judicial examination implemented after the decision of the court below that dismissed the plaintiff's claim and passed the second 37-time judicial examination. Thus, the plaintiff has no legal interest in dispute over the validity of the above failure disposition. Therefore, the lawsuit in this case is illegal because there was no legal interest in the lawsuit pending in the court of final appeal (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu4087, Jul. 14, 1995; 94Nu1293, Nov. 21, 1995, etc.).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is clear that it is impossible to maintain it as it is, and it is sufficient for the Supreme Court to render a direct judgment, so the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed, and the total cost of lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)