Perfect Score on Documents but Failed Interview? College Student Loses Second Trial in Criminal Record Rejection Lawsuit

Local Campus Student A Fails Transfer Exam to Seoul Campus
Document Screening Score 89.99, Interview Score Only 1.25

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] "In my view, the student studied harder and prepared for the exam more diligently than anyone else. Regardless of the outcome of this lawsuit, I hope you do not get discouraged and continue to live diligently as you have been." (Judge)

On November 17 last year, Chief Judge Koo Jaheon of the Civil Division 34 at the Seoul High Court comforted A, a university student in their early 20s. This was during the final hearing of the second trial of the appeal lawsuit filed by A, who attended the local campus of B University, against the school after failing the transfer exam to the Seoul campus.

"Almost perfect on documents, thought I did well on the interview too..."

Previously, A, a liberal arts student, took the transfer exam in 2019 to move to the physics-related department at B University’s Seoul campus. In the first stage, the document screening, A scored 89.99 points out of 90. However, in the second stage interview, A received only 1.25 points out of 10, far below the average interview score. The interviewers judged that A did not possess the mathematical ability or knowledge level necessary to keep up with the major courses, falling significantly behind existing students.

The final selection criteria combined the first stage document score (90%) and the second stage interview score (10%). A was ranked second and thus failed. Only one student was selected in this department’s transfer exam.

Subsequently, A filed a lawsuit against the school foundation, claiming that the rejection decision was invalid and should be canceled. The claim was that the interviewers abused their discretion by unfairly disqualifying A. A’s side argued, "I did not perform so poorly in the interview as to deserve a failing score, and if rejection was solely because I was a liberal arts student, such notice should have been given from the start."

The first trial ruled against A, stating, "There is no evidence to recognize that the interviewers abused or exceeded their discretion." It also referenced the original exam announcement, which stated that if the interview result was judged to be below the academic completion standard and marked as 'fail,' the candidate would be disqualified regardless of the first stage score.

Second trial court: "Interviewers can assign any score"… Appeal dismissed

During the appeal trial, A’s side emphasized that the scoring for the first-place candidate, who could be directly compared, was not disclosed. They argued that it was necessary to examine whether the basis for ranking first and second was reasonable and rational. A also testified in court, saying, "I naturally expected to pass after the interview." This reflected that A had prepared diligently, achieved good results in the document screening, and believed the interview went without major issues.

However, as in the first trial, A lost in the appeal. According to legal sources on the 5th, the Seoul High Court Civil Division 34 dismissed the appeal on the 28th, stating, "It cannot be recognized that the interviewers’ low score for A was an abuse or excess of discretion, considering their judgment that A lacked understanding of the major subjects in the transfer department."

The court explained, "The academic completion criteria stated in the announcement should be understood to include understanding of the major subjects and mathematical ability in the transfer department," adding, "A, preparing for the interview, could have easily predicted that these aspects would be evaluated." The court also added, "Interviewers should be considered able to assign any score within the 0 to 10 point range based on their judgment."

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