1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. Where disciplinary action against a student was conducted according to the disciplinary procedure prescribed by the school regulations, taking into account the behavior of a person subject to disciplinary action, attitude of study at ordinary school, and situation, and it is not unreasonable to take disciplinary action in light of the grounds for disciplinary action actually recognized, it shall be deemed that the disciplinary committee members, other than a legal expert, or the person having authority over disciplinary action, were due to a mistake in interpreting the statutes concerning the seriousness of disciplinary action, barring special circumstances. In such a case, it shall not be deemed that there was a negligence by which tort liability can be imposed on the ground that the determination of disciplinary action was erroneous (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da2007, Sept. 9, 1997, etc.).

However, if it is objectively clear that a school cannot be seen as a ground for disciplinary action, such as expulsion from school, and pays a little attention to it, such circumstance can be easily identified. However, if it is evident that the exercise of the right to discipline cannot be accepted in light of the sound social norms and social norms of Korea, such disciplinary action is denied, and it does not mean that it causes mental pain to the other party, and it constitutes a tort in relation to the student (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Da38288, Apr. 22, 2010, etc.).

B. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

(1) The Defendant operated ○ University as an educational foundation established under the Private School Act. The Plaintiffs were students attending ○ University around April 2006, and Plaintiff 2 graduated from ○ University around August 2008, Plaintiff 1, and Plaintiff 3 around February 2009, respectively.

(2) From April 4, 2006 to April 6, 2006, there was a conflict of opinion between the students belonging to the National Election Commission of the ○ University and the Defendant regarding whether to grant the right to vote on the election of the general student council to the students in the 2 and 3th grade as an affiliated public health university of the ○○ University, which was incorporated into the health and science university of the ○○ University.

(3) On April 5, 2006, the National Election Commission of the ○ University’s total number of students and the election campaign headquarters, including the Plaintiffs, visited the principal officer of the ○ University to deliver to the Minister of Students, who attended the school affairs committee opened on the third floor of the main office of the ○ University, documents containing the contents of the request for recognition of voting rights to students in the second and third years of the ○ University.

(4) The student, including the plaintiffs, demanded the Minister to receive and communicate the above documents, but the Minister refused the student's request. After that, the student, including the plaintiffs, requested the Minister to receive the above documents, and the professor, including the Minister, was practically forced to detain the Minister by way of not allowing the Minister to move or enter the place between the stairs of about 2 and 3 floors for about 15 hours from the following day on the ground that the professor, including the principal, refuses to do so (hereinafter "the act of confinement in this case").

(5) On April 17, 2006, the defendant attended 19 students related to the confinement in this case and held a committee for the punishment of students, and then decided to take the disposition of withdrawal with respect to 7 persons, including the plaintiffs, for one week of reprimand, 1 month of abandonment, 1 month of abandonment, and 7 persons including the plaintiffs. On April 19, 2006, the defendant notified the plaintiffs of the disposition of withdrawal from school (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

(6) On July 28, 2006, the plaintiffs asserted that the departure disposition in this case is null and void, and filed a lawsuit to nullify the departure as Seoul Central District Court 2006Kahap64837, and on October 4, 2007, the above court rendered a judgment that "the departure disposition in this case was procedurally unlawful such as not providing the plaintiffs with sufficient opportunity to explain, and the student Minister, etc. who is the victim, is present as a member, as well as the procedural violation such as the procedural violation, and even if the grounds for the disciplinary action exist in the contents of the case, it is too harsh to the extent that each departure disposition made by the defendant against the plaintiffs on April 19, 2006 is null and void, and the defendant appealed to Seoul High Court 2007Na104555, Nov. 2, 2007, the plaintiffs applied for the provisional disposition in this case for the suspension of its validity as the above provisional disposition in this case 208.

(7) On the other hand, the defendant decided to review the disciplinary action against the plaintiffs and held a student punishment committee from 14:00 to 22:50 on December 13, 2007, and explained about the confinement of this case from the plaintiffs present at the relevant site. After which, on January 21, 2008, the defendant sent a letter of request to the plaintiffs to disclose the apology or reflect on the confinement of this case to the public by February 9, 2008, the defendant sent a reply to the purport that the reason and responsibility of the confinement of this case are all attributable to the plaintiffs.

(8) On February 12, 2008, the Defendant attended by 12 of the 17 members from among the 17 members, and one of the members delegates his voting rights to the Chairperson, and decided to take disciplinary action against the Plaintiffs with the consent of all the members present, and with the consent of all the members, and the re-admission shall be discussed only in the case of attaching a letter of apology to prevent any clear reflectivity, apology, and recurrence. On February 14, 2008, the president of the ○○ University (hereinafter “instant expulsion from school”). The president of the ○ University notified each of the Plaintiffs on February 15, 2008.

(9) On February 27, 2008, the Plaintiffs asserted that the above expulsion from school is null and void, and filed a lawsuit seeking the suspension of the validity of the expulsion from school as Seoul Central District Court 2008Kahap669, and filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the expulsion from school as Seoul Central District Court 2008Kahap18395, and on March 17, 2008, the above provisional disposition was decided to accept the above provisional disposition. On January 21, 2009, even in the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the expulsion from school, the Plaintiffs rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiffs on the ground that the above expulsion from school violates the principle of proportionality by losing a reasonable balance with the grounds for disciplinary action. On the other hand, the Defendant did not appeal and the above judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

(10) In order to review the disciplinary action against the plaintiffs, the defendant again held a student punishment committee from March 27, 2009 to 19:00, and sought a comprehensive explanation from the plaintiffs on the confinement, etc. of this case. On April 13, 2009, the defendant issued a bearer disposition with the consent of a majority of the participating committee members as to the cancellation of the provisional disposition of the suspension of the expulsion from school of this case on March 17, 2008, with the consent of a majority of the participating committee members as to the withdrawal of the provisional disposition of this case from April 19, 2006 where nine members from among the 17 members of the student punishment committee were present and six members delegated voting rights to the chairperson.

(11) On June 11, 2009, the plaintiffs asserted that the above inorganic disposition is null and void, and filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the inorganic disposition as of September 1, 201, Seoul Central District Court 2009Gahap65947. The above court rendered a favorable judgment against the plaintiffs 4 and 5 on the ground that the above plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3 had already graduated from the time of the inorganic disposition and did not hold the status as the student of the ○○ University, on the ground that the above plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3 did not take the position as the student at the time of the inorganic Disposition, but that the inorganic Disposition itself was appropriate, but that the validity of the inorganic disposition was retroactively created prior to the date of the disposition, which became final and conclusive at that time.

C. Based on the aforementioned factual basis, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s measure against the Plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3, who had already graduated from the Defendant and did not have a student status, constitutes a tort in relation to Plaintiff 1, 2, and 3, on the ground that it is objectively apparent that the Defendant could not be subject to a disciplinary measure, and that if the Defendant paid little attention, he could have easily known such circumstances. Since the extreme disciplinary measure such as departure from school and expulsion was null and void, the Defendant’s measure against the said Plaintiffs constitutes a serious inorganic measure, which is not a disciplinary measure, again null and void for the said Plaintiffs, since it is obvious that it is not acceptable in light of sound social norms or social norms, and thus, it constitutes an unlawful case where it is illegal case where the Defendant’s measure against the said Plaintiffs is deemed to inflict mental pain on the other party, thereby constituting a tort.

D. However, we cannot agree with the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

The following circumstances revealed in the above facts and records: ① the Plaintiffs were mobilized collective consolation for about 15 hours on the ground that the Minister did not receive the documents containing the contents of the student’s request, etc.; ② the Plaintiffs were forced to use the professors belonging to the Defendant for a narrow space between the second and third floors, and this was an act with intent to carry out his intention unfairly through confinement against the professors belonging to the university and college, a joint member of the university and society, by using collective consolation, and thereby seriously damaging the intellectual, moral, democratic health of the university and society; ② The contents of the bearer disposition of this case constitute a serious cause of disciplinary action; ② The Plaintiffs’ act constitutes a new illegal confinement against the other party, not only the Plaintiff 1, 2, and 3 who already graduated from the university, but also the Plaintiff 4, and 5 who did not actually suffer any disadvantage due to the withdrawal disposition of this case, and thus, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiffs’ act of removal from school constitutes an unlawful provisional disposition with the purport of the above provisional disposition with the effect of suspension of its validity from school life.

E. Nevertheless, the lower court, solely based on its stated reasoning, determined that the Defendant’s measure of inorganic science of this case constitutes a tort in relation to Plaintiff 1, 2, and 3. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the requirements for establishment of a tort caused by a disciplinary action, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal

2. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. After recognizing the circumstances based on the adopted evidence, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s instant disposition of expulsion and expulsion from school against the Plaintiffs clearly acknowledged the grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiffs, and that even if disciplinary action was rendered in accordance with the disciplinary provision, it is difficult to deem that the instant disposition of expulsion and expulsion from school constitute a tort against the Plaintiffs, and that the instant disposition of expulsion from school cannot be deemed to constitute a tort against the Plaintiffs, and that it does not constitute a case where it is objectively apparent that the Defendant’s disposition of expulsion from school cannot be taken a disciplinary action against the Plaintiffs 4 and 5 with due care, and it does not constitute a case where it is evident that such circumstance is easily known or it is not permissible in light of our sound social norms or social rules.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles as to the requirements for establishment of tort caused by disciplinary action, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion

B. On the other hand, as long as the judgment of the court below that recognized the Defendant as liability for damages due to the instant inorganic school disposition against Plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3 on the ground as seen above is reversed, the allegation in the grounds of appeal by Plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3, which purport that the court below erred in calculating the amount of damages on a different premise, cannot be

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by the Defendant, the part against the Defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. All appeals by the Plaintiffs are dismissed. The costs of appeal between the Plaintiffs 4, 5 and the Defendant are assessed against the Plaintiffs 4 and 5. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)