[1] The method of selecting an answer at a multiple-choice test for the judicial examination

[2] In a case where a person passed the first examination conducted after a failure to pass the first examination for the judicial examination, whether the revocation of the failure disposition can be claimed (negative)

[1] Article 8 (1) of the Judicial Examination Act, Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 7 and 10 of the Judicial Examination Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Da33960 delivered on April 10, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 1076), Supreme Court Decision 2001Du3335, 342, 359 Delivered on October 8, 2002, Supreme Court Decision 2007Da35534 Delivered on October 12, 2007 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu2685 Delivered on February 23, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1123)

Plaintiff 1 and four others (Law Firm Bosch Rexroth, Attorneys Kim Young-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Minister of Justice

Seoul High Court Decision 2007Nu16563 decided January 9, 2008

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Determination on the grounds of appeal by Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, and 4

In a multiple-choice examination issue, the purpose of setting questions and the instructions for choosing questions must be objectively grasped and assessed in the examination question itself. Thus, without any special circumstance, it cannot be determined by writing the subjective setting questions which go beyond the bounds of the language and text. However, such objective setting questions and the instructions for choosing questions shall not be determined explicitly by the text, but by comprehensively analyzing the questions and answers, clearly and implicitly genuine setting questions and the instructions for choosing answers shall be determined. Thus, an applicant shall mutually compare and examine the contents of the text and answers in accordance with the aforementioned explicit and implied instruction and 300 if it is insufficient or inaccurate, it shall be deemed that only one of the most appropriate questions should be drawn up by comparing and examining the contents of the text and answers in accordance with the above explicit and implied instruction, and if it does not interfere with the understanding of genuine setting questions and answers of the applicant, it shall not be deemed that there is an error in the law of 201, 207.37.57.

The court below held that, in calculating the net inheritance amount, which is an element for calculating the amount of statutory inheritance in cases where there is an excessive special beneficiary among co-inheritors, there is no answer in accordance with the opinion that is based on the specific share of inheritance to be actually paid by the person entitled to statutory inheritance. On the other hand, according to the opinion that is based on statutory inheritance, if there is an applicant for the examination of this case at the average level of statutory inheritance, it is necessary to sufficiently grasp the applicant's implied instruction to choose a specific answer calculated by one of the methods of calculating the statutory inheritance, and then select a answer answer calculated accordingly. The defendant also can select only a answer answer calculated by one of the methods of calculating the law due to the nature of the objective problem, so there is no deviation or abuse of discretionary power due to the correct answer or error in setting questions. In light of the above legal principles and records, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of calculating the net inheritance of the person entitled to statutory inheritance and the judgment of the court below, as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

2. Judgment on Plaintiff 5’s grounds of appeal

In full view of the provisions of Articles 7 and 10 of the Judicial Examination Act, even if a successful applicant has passed the first examination, it is merely a prerequisite for a successful applicant to be eligible for the second examination and the second examination of the next meeting, and it does not change the legal status of the successful applicant. Therefore, if a successful applicant passed the first examination conducted after the first failure to pass the examination, there is no legal interest to seek the cancellation of the said failure disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu2685 delivered on February 23, 196).

In the same purport, the court below is just in maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance that the plaintiff 5, who passed the first examination of the 49th judicial examination following the rejection disposition of this case, had no legal interest in seeking the revocation of the rejection disposition of this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the interests

Meanwhile, insofar as the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that rejected the plaintiff 5's lawsuit of this case, the argument regarding the legitimacy of the plaintiff 5's merits cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)