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

A. The Defendant is a school foundation that establishes and operates C University (hereinafter “Defendant University”) and the Plaintiff is a student who was enrolled in the actual foreign language department of the Defendant University in 2011.

1. Posting a letter stating that normal management of business affairs of a school is illegal;

2. Interference with the mediation of disputes between students and the Myeon educational crisis;

3. Interference with classes, and interference with school administration;

B. On January 20, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of abandonment for three months against the Plaintiff on the ground that the following grounds for disciplinary action fall under Article 72(1)2, 5, 6, and 8 of the school regulations of the Defendant University.

Article 72 (Disciplinary Action) If a student falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the president may take disciplinary action after deliberation by the Students Guidance Committee and the School Affairs Committee:

2. Person who disturbs the order of a private teaching institute;

5. A person who degrades the dignity of a school or infringes on other persons' personality by using, or carrying with, an aggressive language, such as abusive or slandering, in cyber spaces.

6. Any person who has no chance to repent due to bad character and conduct.

8. Other disciplinary actions against a person who deserts the principal portion of a student shall be classified into warnings, probation, abandonment, inorganic science and occupation, and standards therefor shall be determined separately by the president, depending on the circumstances.

Any person subject to disciplinary action may attend a meeting at the time of deliberation on disciplinary action and present his/her opinion.

C. Article 72 of the School Regulations of the Defendant’s University is as follows:

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 20, 22, 23 evidence, Eul evidence 10-1, Eul evidence 17-4, Eul evidence 18, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Although the Plaintiff was given sufficient opportunity to state his opinion in the disciplinary procedure pursuant to Article 13(2) of the Higher Education Act and Article 72(3) of the school regulations of the Defendant University, the Defendant did not give sufficient opportunity to state his opinion to the Plaintiff during the instant disciplinary procedure. Therefore, the instant disciplinary action is null and void due to procedural defects.