2014 CSAT 'World Geography Question 8' Multiple Answers Accepted... Supreme Court Rules "No State Compensation Liability"

First Trial Dismisses Compensation Claim → Second Trial Recognizes Duty of Care Negligence in Question Setting
Supreme Court: "No Loss of Objective Justification to Acknowledge State Liability"

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court has ruled that recognizing multiple correct answers for the 2014 academic year CSAT (College Scholastic Ability Test) world geography question does not constitute an illegal act to the extent that it loses objective legitimacy and warrants 'state compensation liability.'

The Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Oh Kyung-mi) announced on the 15th that it overturned the lower court's ruling which recognized state compensation liability in the appeal case regarding the claim for damages due to the recognition of multiple correct answers for the 2014 CSAT world geography question, and remanded the case to the second trial.

The Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation (KICE) judged that the statement in question 8 of the world geography section of the CSAT held on November 7, 2013, which said "(In 2012) the European Union (EU) has a larger total production scale than the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)," was correct. Four examinees who were not convinced filed a lawsuit against KICE to cancel the grade determination, but lost in the first trial.

However, in October 2014, the appellate court ruled, "Since the total production amount after 2010 and the average total production from 2007 to 2012 show that NAFTA is larger than the EU, KICE's judgment was incorrect," and "there is no correct choice for this question, so KICE's disposition is illegal." Accordingly, KICE recalculated the world geography scores of the examinees and took remedial measures such as additional admissions. It is known that about 18,000 students were affected by the question error.

Nevertheless, among the students who received remedial measures, 94 filed a lawsuit for damages at the Busan District Court in January 2015. They argued that even though they were admitted to universities after score recalculation, they suffered mental damages for losing a year and damages from delayed social advancement by one year. Repeat examinees claimed property damages from attending other universities or enrolling in cram schools, and other examinees also experienced confusion such as applying to lower-tier universities due to incorrect score reports.

The first trial court handling the damage claim lawsuit dismissed the examinees' claims on the grounds that KICE corrected the error and recalculated the scores, providing remedial measures, but the second trial court partially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

The second trial court stated, "Although the question was clearly incorrect, negligence was recognized for failing to fulfill the duty of care required in the question creation process and the objection handling process," and ordered KICE to pay 10 million won each to 42 examinees who chose to retake the exam or were admitted late to universities due to the error, and 2 million won each to 52 examinees whose scores changed but whose admission results were unaffected.

However, the Supreme Court's judgment differed. The court stated, "To recognize state compensation liability for errors in question creation or answer keys in exams administered and managed by the state, it must be comprehensively judged whether the procedures were properly conducted, whether errors in question creation and answer determination were corrected afterward, and whether appropriate remedial measures were taken, to determine if the state has a substantial reason to bear full compensation responsibility for damages."

Furthermore, the court said, "KICE created question 8 through multiple reviews and proper procedures at the time, referred the objection to the Objection Review Committee after consulting academic advisors upon receiving objections, and promptly proceeded with remedial procedures for examinees after losing the administrative lawsuit," and "It is difficult to see that the defendants' actions from question creation to remedial measures for examinees lost objective legitimacy to the extent of recognizing state compensation liability."

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