| © News1 DB |
The Supreme Court ruled that it was justified to cancel the pass and to restrict the examination for five years to those who passed the civil service examination, who hid their history of investigation by the investigative agency.
On the 31st, the 3rd division of the Supreme Court (referee Kim Jae-hyung) confirmed the lower court ruling that the plaintiff lost on the 30th of last month in the appeal of Mr.
In November 2018, Mr. A applied for the examination for a professional tenure official at the Presidential Secretariat and passed the final exam, but in March of the following year, he was revoked and was banned from taking the exam for five years because he hid his history of being investigated by an investigative agency.
It became a problem that Mr. A answered ‘No’ to the question ‘Have you ever been investigated by the National Police Agency, the Prosecutor’s Office, or the Board of Audit and Inspection’ in the questionnaire before the interview.
The fact that Mr. A was being tried in the first instance following receiving a summary order of 500,000 won in fine and requesting a formal trial was revealed during the background check and personnel verification process following passing.
Person A filed a lawsuit, saying, “I wrote ‘no’ because I recognized the police investigation and the National Police Agency investigation as different. paid
Mr. A also argued that it was excessive to deprive him of his qualifications to take the civil service examination for five years.
The court of first instance ruled once morest the plaintiff, saying that the act of hiding the history investigated by the investigative agency was “an act that affects the test result of the person or others by other illegal means” according to the Civil Service Recruitment Examination Ordinance.
The court said, “The questionnaire cannot be considered as ‘documents related to the examination’ prescribed by the Civil Service Appointment Examination Ordinance, but it is a document that is required to be submitted in relation to the evaluation of test takers. do,” he explained.
He also pointed out, “If you are an ordinary person with sound common sense, you can easily see that the expression ‘from the National Police Agency, the Prosecutor’s Office, or the Board of Audit and Inspection’ in the content of the question is an example of a representative central administrative agency in charge of national affairs regarding investigations and audits.” .
The court ruled that even with regard to the restrictions on the qualifications to take the test, “it does not completely ban the test, but merely suspends the qualification for five years, so it satisfies the balance of legal interests and the minimum infringement.”
The second instance judge held that the first instance judgment was just, and the Supreme Court made the same decision.