During a school exam, a high school student with Bluetooth earphones was given a '0 score' in the subject, prompting them to file a lawsuit claiming it was excessive punishment; however, they ultimately lost in the Supreme Court. The court ruled that it was justified to strictly apply relevant regulations regarding misconduct, such as having prohibited items, in the internal assessment tests that affect university admissions.
The Supreme Court Civil Division 1 (presiding Judge Seo Kyung-hwan) rejected the appeal in February in a lawsuit filed by high school student A against the corporation that operates the school, confirming the ruling in favor of the school by the second instance. The rejection of the appeal means that if there are no significant legal violations, the court affirms the second-instance ruling without specifying reasons.
A took the midterm exam for the second semester of first grade at a high school in Daegu in October 2023. After completing the English exam in the first session, A's classroom buzzed during the second session of the information subject exam. Consequently, the supervising teacher conducted a bag inspection, discovering Bluetooth earphones in A's bag. As a result, the school assigned A a score of 0 for both the English and information subject exams according to the academic performance management regulations.
A filed a lawsuit against the school's decision, arguing that it was excessive. A claimed, 'I had no knowledge of having Bluetooth earphones in my bag, nor did I intend to engage in misconduct using them.' Furthermore, A asserted that the school's negligence led them to take the exam while possessing Bluetooth earphones. In response, the school contended that it acted according to regulations and that these regulations followed the misconduct handling guidelines of the College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT). The school also stated that it had repeatedly informed students, including A, about these regulations.
The first instance ruled in favor of A. The court stated, 'If the academic performance management regulations were applied strictly, it could lead to unduly harsh consequences for the student, so there is a need to limit them within reasonable bounds.' The court further noted, 'A's possession of Bluetooth earphones is unlikely to have impacted the fairness of the exam subject scores, as there seems to have been no such intent on A's part,' and determined, 'It is appropriate to acknowledge A's actual scores as 90 in English and 100 in information.' The school appealed the first-instance decision.
In the second instance, the decision was overturned. The court stated, 'The purpose of the academic performance management regulations is to consider the objective fact of “having prohibited items” as misconduct, regardless of the subjective intent of the possessor or whether the related act occurred.' It was deemed appropriate to view A's actions as a violation of the regulations prohibiting possession of restricted items.
Additionally, the court remarked, 'A argues that applying the same standards used for misconduct in high school tests, which determine university admission outcomes in the CSAT, is unfair. However, considering the importance of high school grades in the rolling admission process, the significance of high school examinations cannot be seen as lesser than the CSAT.' It then ruled, 'The first-instance judgment is overturned, and A's claims are dismissed.' A's side appealed the case, but the Supreme Court confirmed the second-instance ruling with a rejection of the appeal.