The plaintiff is a second-year student of a high school who lives in the name of "A" in the E school, and the defendant is a founder of the E school.

On May 9, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) was aware of Nonparty G student’s shocking of the task that the Plaintiff gave to Nonparty F student; (b) the principal of the E-school was the Plaintiff’s “act of providing an over-the-day task” that constitutes an unlawful act; and (c) the Plaintiff took a disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”).

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion as to the plaintiff's claim as to facts without dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole argument shall be deemed null and void for the following reasons.

① The Plaintiff is merely providing F or other students with the subject matter without their intent to cut the subject matter, on the grounds that the Plaintiff: (a) “A person who compared F with the answer that the Plaintiff had performed the task; and (b) the Plaintiff did not recognize the subject matter.”

② E학교 학칙상 징계의 대상인 ‘과제물을 제공하는 행위’는 ‘과제물을 베끼는 행위(Copying someone else's homework)’와 쌍을 이루는 조항으로서 상대방이 과제물을 베끼도록 할 의사가 없이 과제물을 건네는 행위는 징계의 대상인 ‘과제물을 제공하는 행위’에 해당하지 아니하므로 이 사건 징계처분은 요건을 갖추지 못하였고, 같은 맥락에서 한국국제학교의 학칙 역시 부정행위에 대하여 ‘과제 베끼기를 허용하도록 하는 것(Allowing one's homework to be copied)'이라고 규정하고 있다.

③ According to the interpretation of school regulations, it can be seen that the E school regulations have uniformly a static action, or that it is possible to take disciplinary action by phase according to the Dicipline Act which is determined by a disciplinary action.