▲ The above picture is not related to the content of the article.


Since the multiple-choice question is to choose 'the one closest to the correct answer', it was decided that even if the contents of the prophecy were a little vague, it could not be regarded as an error in the question.



According to the legal community today (18th), the 10th administrative division of the Seoul High Court (Judge Seongsu-je Yang Jin-soo Ha Tae-han) overturned the first trial ruling that the plaintiff prevailed in a lawsuit against the Human Resources Development Service of Korea by 80 applicants for the certified real estate examination against the Human Resources Development Service of Korea. I did.



The court judged, "Unless there is a big difficulty in understanding the intention of the question, it is difficult to see that the question is illegal because the content of the correct answer is somewhat vague or unclear."



This question is the 11th subject of 'Introduction to Real Estate Science' of the 30th Qualified Real Estate Agent 1st Exam conducted in October 2019.



It was a problem to find the 'wrong explanation of the price elasticity of supply and demand for real estate' among the five explanations presented.



The correct answer given by the questioner was #1, 'If demand increases when the price elasticity of demand is perfectly elastic, the equilibrium price does not change'.



However, controversy arose among the test takers that there was no correct answer.



Candidates who were rejected by one question because this question was incorrectly answered asked the Central Administrative Tribunal to cancel the disposition of rejection, claiming that the question was wrong, but it was dismissed.



The test takers even went to administrative litigation, and in July last year, the court of first instance accepted the test takers' claim that Question 11 was an error.



It was effective because some experts suggested that the first stanza was a 'correct explanation'.



The first trial court said, "The opinion of experts is consistent with the plaintiffs' argument that the equilibrium price does not change because the horizontal demand curve does not shift upward even if demand increases when the price elasticity of demand is perfectly elastic." is the correct explanation."



The Court of Appeal also acknowledged the fact that experts' opinions on Prosecution No. 1 were mixed and the interpretation was somewhat unclear.



However, he judged, "It seems that the average test taker can relatively easily exclude the rest of the questions from the correct answer and select the question in this case, which is the 'most incorrect explanation'."



The Court of Appeal pointed out that the second to fifth sentences were "an incorrect explanation from any point of view," and that "any test taker with an average level of preparation for the certified real estate exam can understand it."