Did the test takers say “I haven’t seen it” came out in the practice test?
Ministry of Justice “There is no law school professor among the members of the public law record type questionnaire”
[법률저널=안혜성 기자] In the 10th bar exam, where there is constant noise, such as the examination of corona19 confirmed patients and the issue of quarantine measures and the permission of underlining the test code, the’fairness of the questions’ controversy broke out.
The 10th bar exam in 2021 has been held at universities located in 25 law schools nationwide since the 5th, and has the same structure as the question in the mock exam of a law school in the public law record type, which is the exam subject on the first day. It was pointed out that the question was submitted.
The subject matter was that the forest field owned by Jongjoong was accepted by an expropriation ruling, and Jongjoong, the client, filed an objection against the ruling, but was dismissed. Jongjung argues that it is difficult to accept the deposit made after the detention ruling, and is seeking to confirm the invalidity of the opposition ruling as a result of the detention ruling. In addition, as a preliminary claim, it filed a lawsuit for the increase or decrease of compensation.
Candidates raised doubts about the fairness of the test, claiming that the question was virtually the same as the practice test taken at the parent university. In particular, this problem is more problematic in that it was a so-called’unintelligence’, which was evaluated as “content that I have not seen” among many candidates as a problem not found in any textbooks published on the market.
On the day of the test, the candidates who took the test at the Seoul National University Humanities Center test center also said, “This record type seems to have been almost the highest in history. There was information about the increase in compensation, and it was the purpose of the claim I saw for the first time.”, “I learned to increase the compensation amount, but I did not know how to specifically calculate the amount and what to write. I was too short of time,” he said.
In such a situation, there is a controversy over fairness and equity in that there is inevitably a big difference from the candidates who solved similar problems in advance and took the test.
In this regard, attorney Kang Seong-min said, “The plaintiff was accidentally closed, and the case was accidentally bound to the detention ruling and the objection, and the reason for the invalidation was the cause of the indemnity deposit is invalidated. To be honest, he explained that the model answer to the bar exam question only needs to be renamed from the data distributed by the parent school,” and he strongly criticized that “the 10th bar exam question public method record type question is a crime”.
Jeong Seon-gyun, professor of Daewoo Law School at Sogang University, also gave a critical opinion. He said, “In relation to land expropriation, it has been practiced a lot in practice to contend with the land expropriation committee for expropriation or objection, and to file a preliminary lawsuit for the increase of compensation against the project implementer in preparation for dismissal of the surrounding claim. However, it is often explained in lectures that this is a method that has been widely used since then as preliminary claims became possible due to the revision of the Civil Procedure Act in 2002. In other words, this type of problem itself can be asked.”
However, “the fact that the fact that both the acceptance judgment and the objection judgment on the surrounding claim are invalid and the fact that the cause is not depositing the compensation is really’excessive’ is a local fact, so I don’t know who can answer this question without practicing in advance. “I think that it is impossible to answer this question even if the god of public law records comes without seeing this question before the exam.”
“But, if a problem containing almost the same facts is distributed as a material to students at a specific school, if the students of that school have encountered the problem, then shouldn’t it be regarded as a problem leak? It is not something to go on quietly.”
As the controversy grew, the Ministry of Justice sent a letter to the candidates stating that “there is no professor at the law school among the members of the questionnaire for public law records,” and as soon as the facts are confirmed, they will take necessary measures according to laws and principles. It is known that.
Despite the Ministry of Justice’s clarification, the controversy continues. Regarding the letter of the Ministry of Justice, attorney Kang Sung-min said, “I only have to admit that the questionnaire was asked after contacting the outside. In the end, it is not an individual’s deviation, but whether it is a public offering or a problem with the questionnaire system,” he said. Furthermore, he urged immediate disclosure of the list of candidates and measures to avoid disadvantages to the examinees.
Copyright © Legal Journal Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution prohibited