2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On September 15, 2014, the Plaintiff reported that “Nonindicted C, D, E, F, G, and H were subject to school violence.” However, on October 6, 2014, the Autonomous Committee on Countermeasures against School Violence (hereinafter “Autonomous Committee”) held on the basis of the following reasons, deemed that it was not a school violence case, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of “not a school violence case” on October 16, 2014 according to the determination of the said autonomous committee.

- With respect to school violence and bullying in March 2014, it is impossible to confirm the facts thereof because the statement among the students is not sufficiently secured, or witness students’ relevant statements are not sufficiently secured. - There is no case directly referring to the Plaintiff in relation to cyber violence, and there is an apology between the students, and it is unreasonable to deem that there is objective mental damage in light of the Plaintiff’s SNS response, etc. thereafter. - In the case of the submitted student confirmation document, it is difficult to ensure the authenticity and reliability of the confirmation document by receiving the report that the Plaintiff’s mother drafted a document with the content of compelling the Plaintiff’s mother.

On November 3, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Committee for Countermeasures against School Violence (hereinafter “Local Committee”), but was dismissed on December 4, 2014.

C. After that, on February 13, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition against the competent regional committee to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission for adjudication on the revocation of the decision to review school violence, and withdrawn the petition. On January 5, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, a revocation suit is required to be filed within 90 days from the date when the existence of the disposition, etc. is known.

However, according to the above circumstances, the Plaintiff was subject to a review decision by the Local Committee on December 4, 2014, and was also subject to the Local Committee.