A man in his 50s who missed the exam due to COVID-19 loses lawsuit claiming "different eligibility"

Classified as Suspected COVID-19 Case, Gave Up Final Exam
Supreme Court Dismisses Petition Saying "Firm View of Constitutionality"

A test-taker in his 50s who missed the opportunity to take the bar exam due to COVID-19 the day before the test filed a lawsuit requesting recognition of his eligibility, but ultimately lost in the Supreme Court.

According to the legal community on the 22nd, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Kim Seon-su) affirmed Mr. A's loss by summary dismissal on the 16th of last month. Summary dismissal is a system where the Supreme Court dismisses an appeal without separately explaining the reasons for the decision and affirms the lower court's ruling, unless there are special reasons such as serious violations of law.

Mr. A graduated from a prestigious university's law school but gave up on the judicial exam due to financial difficulties and later enrolled in law school.

However, Mr. A failed the bar exam all four times from 2017, the year he graduated, to 2020. It is known that he faced difficulties preparing for the exam after being diagnosed with colorectal cancer and cerebral infarction during the exam period.

Supreme Court
[Image source=Yonhap News]

In 2021, Mr. A missed his last chance after being classified as a suspected COVID-19 case when he visited a plain to treat his chronic asthma the day before the exam. Article 7 of the Bar Examination Act stipulates that one can only take the bar exam up to five times within five years from the end of the month in which the law school degree was obtained.

Accordingly, Mr. A filed an administrative lawsuit requesting eligibility to take the exam. However, both the first and second trials dismissed the claim, citing the Constitutional Court's firm view that the provision of the Bar Examination Act is constitutional.

The Constitutional Court ruled in 2016, 2018, and 2020 that the provision limiting the number of bar exam attempts to five times within five years does not violate the freedom to choose one's occupation, and all decisions were constitutional.

However, criticism continues in the legal community that the provision arbitrarily restricting the exam period and opportunities infringes on the constitutional freedom to choose one's occupation. Although military service obligations are exempted, the lack of exceptions related to pregnancy and childbirth has been pointed out as unfair.

It is known that three constitutional lawsuits related to Article 7 of the Bar Examination Act are currently pending formal review at the Constitutional Court.

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