Document score 89.99 but interview 1.25... Lawsuit over failed transfer exam

Appealing the Result, Knocking on the Court Door
"Alleging Interviewers' Discretion Abuse"
Court Dismisses Claim, Citing "No Evidence"

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] College student A felt that campus life in Seoul was just around the corner. He passed the first document screening, which practically decided the outcome of the campus transfer exam, with an overwhelming score. The only remaining step was the second interview, which accounted for just 10% of the total score. Everyone thought that as long as he didn’t offend the professors during the interview, his acceptance was guaranteed. However, what he received was a rejection notice.

He thought the interview went smoothly without any issues. Unable to accept the result, A knocked on the court’s door. After nearly a year of deliberation, the court recently concluded that the school’s decision was not unreasonable. Although this judgment must be disappointing for A, who had been striving for two years solely to transfer campuses, the court found that the interviewers did not abuse or exceed their discretionary authority.

Almost perfect score in documents, performed well in interview

A was a student enrolled at a local campus of C University. In November 2019, just before completing his fourth semester, he applied for the transfer exam to move to the physics department at the Seoul campus, which had only one available spot. The first stage document screening was based on GPA and TOEIC scores. He easily passed with a total score of 89.99 points, just 0.01 points shy of a perfect score (GPA 4.1, TOEIC 865). Although not publicly disclosed, this was effectively the highest score among the applicants.

The final selection criteria for the transfer exam combined the first stage total score (90%) and the interview score (10%). He reportedly answered well during the interview and received comments from the interviewers such as "Excellent grades and good TOEIC score." However, the score he received in the interview averaged 1.25 points. Considering that the average interview score of successful candidates from the previous year was 9.4 points, this score was far below passing. Ultimately, he ranked second in the combined score and was rejected by a narrow margin.

Seoul Central District Court / Photo by Moon Honam munonam@

Why did the interviewers give such a failing score?

The interviewers believed that A did not possess the mathematical ability or knowledge level necessary to keep up with physics-related major courses, comparable to existing students. The basis for this low score was that A, a liberal arts student, had received a grade of 3 in high school math and had never taken basic science courses such as math or physics at university.

During the defense, A argued that this logic was unacceptable. He stated that the school initially explained that his current major would not affect the selection, and he rebutted that he had received excellent grades in physics-related courses taken at university. He also claimed that aside from the question "Did you do well in math in high school?" he was not asked any questions that could assess his basic math or science skills during the interview.

The court’s judgment and perspective

The Seoul Central District Court Civil Division 31 (Presiding Judge Ji-sook Kim), which heard the case, dismissed A’s request to invalidate the rejection decision for his campus transfer. The court found insufficient evidence to conclude that the interviewers’ evaluation was unreasonable or lacked legitimacy. The court stated, "There is no evidence to recognize that the interviewers’ assignment of 1.25 points to A, resulting in his failure in the transfer exam, constituted an abuse or excess of discretion." The original exam announcement also stated that "if the interview results determine that the academic achievement criteria are not met, a 'fail' judgment will be given regardless of the first stage score," which supported this decision.

A’s side argued earlier that "the interviewers arbitrarily gave an unfair score of 1.25 points to reject him." However, in court, this claim was not addressed in relation to the final successful candidates who could serve as direct comparison subjects. This was likely because the matter was closer to a criminal rather than a civil issue.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.