'Document Virtually Perfect - University Student Appeals Campus Transfer Exam Failure'

Litigation Representative: "Cannot Verify Other Students' Scores"

Seoul Central District Court / Photo by Mun Ho-nam munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] A student who lost a lawsuit against the school after failing the campus transfer exam has filed an appeal. This student received an almost perfect score in the first stage document screening but failed the second stage interview, resulting in rejection. (Refer to Asia Economy June 1 article 'Document score 89.99 but interview 1.25... lawsuit over transfer exam failure')

According to the legal community on the 16th, Mr. A's side recently submitted an appeal to the first trial court, the Civil Division 31 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Ji-sook Kim). Mr. A's legal representative, Attorney Seonguk Kim, told Asia Economy in a phone interview that day, "We believe the interviewers' evaluation exceeded their discretionary authority," adding, "We think there is room to contest this in the appellate court, so we filed the appeal."

Attorney Kim said, "We will seek a judgment based on common sense in the appellate court." He argued that it was unreasonable for Mr. A to receive 1.25 points out of 10 in the interview and be ultimately rejected in the exam. He stated, "If he really performed poorly in the interview, such a score might be possible, but circumstantially, it doesn't seem like he performed that badly," and added, "He should have scored around 5 to 6 points."

Previously, Mr. A, who was enrolled at a local campus of C University in November 2019, applied for the transfer exam to move to the physics-related department at the university's Seoul campus, where only one student was to be selected. He scored 89.99 out of 90 in the first stage document screening but received 1.25 out of 10 in the second stage interview, finishing second and failing. The final selection criteria for the transfer exam combined 90% of the first stage total score and 10% of the interview score.

The first trial court ruled that the interviewers did not abuse or exceed their discretionary authority in awarding Mr. A 1.25 points. The court found that the interviewers' rationale?that Mr. A, a liberal arts student, lacked the mathematical ability or knowledge level to follow physics-related courses?did not lose its legitimacy. Attorney Kim said, "If they said it was impossible because he was a liberal arts student, they should have stopped him from the start," adding, "But there was no such notice initially."

Attorney Kim expressed regret that the scoring details of the first-place successful candidate, who could serve as a direct comparison, were not disclosed. He said, "Although there is no intention to criticize the successful candidate, the school, Ministry of Education, and Board of Audit all refused to disclose information citing 'privacy,'" and added, "If there is a first place, there must be a second place, so shouldn't we examine whether the basis for the scores is reasonable and rational?"

Mr. A is said to have submitted a leave of absence to the campus he was attending. Attorney Kim said, "I heard he has practically stopped eating and drinking," and added, "You can imagine how worried his parents must be." He also said, "He himself is not in a situation to continue legal battles over the failure," and "His parents are more worried, thinking 'What will happen to his life like this?' and thus sought a judgment in the appellate court."