서면사과처분 등 취소청구
1. On May 20, 2014, the Defendant limited to the written apology and disposition against Plaintiff A against the victim student and Plaintiff D.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiffs and H are students who were enrolled in the second and seventh grade of G middle schools in the year 2013.
B. On May 12, 2014, the G Middle School Violence Countermeasures Autonomy Committee (hereinafter “Autonomous Committee”) held a meeting of the autonomous committee on the grounds that the Plaintiff and six students, including the Plaintiff and D, exercised school violence (collective harassment) to H, and decided to prohibit the contact, intimidation, and retaliation with the victim student and the reported or accused student pursuant to Article 17(1)1 of the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against Violence in Schools (hereinafter “School Violence Prevention Act”), with respect to Plaintiff A, in accordance with Article 17(1)2 of the same Act.
C. On May 20, 2014, according to the resolution of the autonomous committee, the Defendant issued a written letter and disposition against the Plaintiff A with respect to the victim student, and a disposition prohibiting the Plaintiff from having contact with the victim student and the reported or accused student, intimidation, and retaliation against the Plaintiff D (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) procedural defect (A) did not present the grounds for the instant disposition, thereby violating Article 23 of the Administrative Procedures Act.
(B) Of the members of the instant autonomous committee, a police officer who participated in the meeting of the instant autonomous committee despite the existence of a ground for exclusion or challenge, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the resolution by the autonomous committee.
(C) The Plaintiffs were not guaranteed fair procedures in the course of investigation and deliberation.
(2) The instant disposition is a substantive defect that does not specify the grounds for the disposition.
(B) The instant disposition is erroneous for misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal norms.