Since it is a minor, the legal representative B and C

2. D;

Since it is a minor, the legal representative E and mother F

3. G.

Since it is a minor, the legal representative H/Mo

[Judgment of the court below]

Samsung Law Firm, Attorney Kim Byung-soo

Since it is a minor, the legal representative L, mother M

Attorney Park Jae-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising from the defendant’s intervention is assessed against the defendant’s Intervenor, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

A. The plaintiffs and the defendant supplementary intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the "participating") are students attending J Middle School (hereinafter referred to as the "School of this case").

B. On November 20, 2019, the Autonomous Committee on Countermeasures against School Violence (hereinafter referred to as the “Autonomous Committee”) decided on November 20, 2019 on the grounds that the Plaintiffs exercised school violence against the Intervenor and N, the Plaintiffs resolved on the prohibition of contact, intimidation, and retaliation against the Intervenor and N, the suspension of attendance ten days, the suspension of attendance, the change of class, the 10 hours of special education, and the completion of five hours of special education by guardians.

C. On November 26, 2019, an intervenor filed a petition for reexamination with the Regional Committee for Countermeasures against School Violence in Ulsan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Local Committee”), and on December 18, 2019, the Regional Committee decided to change the dispositions against the plaintiffs to the transfer under Article 17(1)8 of the former Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against School Violence (amended by Act No. 16441, Aug. 20, 2019; hereinafter “former School Violence Prevention Act”) and the transfer of students under Article 17(3) of the same Act and the special education of students under Article 17(3) of the same Act and five hours of special education of guardians under Article 17(9) of the same Act.

D. On January 21, 2020, the Defendant rendered a disposition of transfer to the Plaintiffs for ten hours of special education for students, five hours of special education for guardians (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) The instant school accepted only the Intervenor’s unilateral assertion in the course of the initial investigation into school violence, and did not undergo the prior notification procedure under Article 21(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act in the course of deliberation and resolution by the regional committee, and did not provide the Plaintiffs with an opportunity to state opinions under Article 22(3) of the Administrative Procedures Act. The instant disposition based on the resolution of the regional committee is unlawful as it is procedurally unlawful in that it prevents the attorney-at-law appointed by the Plaintiffs as his/her agent from attending the deliberation and making statements.

2) The Intervenor and the Plaintiffs were in distress or at the time of each other. Considering that it is difficult for the Plaintiffs to deem that they committed unilateral assault against the Intervenor, that the Plaintiffs were not exercising school violence collectively and systematically to the intervenors, that the Plaintiffs are in conflict with the Intervenor after the occurrence of the instant case, that the Plaintiffs’ parents or the Plaintiffs made efforts to compromise with the Intervenor, and that the Plaintiffs did not have been referred to the Autonomous Committee prior to the instant case, the instant disposition was unlawful as it was an abuse of discretionary authority.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether deliberation and resolution by the local committee are legitimate

A) According to Article 12(1)3 and (2) of the Administrative Procedures Act and the main sentence of Article 11(4) of the same Act, a party, etc. may appoint an attorney as his/her agent, and an attorney-at-law appointed as his/her agent may perform all acts relating to administrative procedures on behalf of the parties, etc. In light of the provisions and purport of the aforementioned administrative section, the right to defense through an attorney should be guaranteed in a disadvantageous disposition procedure such as disciplinary action in light of the rule of law and the principle of due process under the Constitution, and the principle of due process. An attorney-at-law appointed by a person subject to disciplinary action to attend a disciplinary committee and state necessary opinions for a person subject to disciplinary deliberation, barring any special circumstance, an administrative agency shall not reject such request, barring special circumstances. Accordingly, even if an attorney-at-law appointed by a person subject to disciplinary action as his/her agent intends to attend and state his/her opinion in the disciplinary committee, if the person subject to disciplinary action or his/her employee prevents the person subject to disciplinary action from attending the disciplinary committee’s deliberation and resolution, the disciplinary action shall be revoked in principle (see, etc.

B) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the respective statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 14, 15, and Eul evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 10, the local committee’s deliberation and resolution with respect to the plaintiffs was conducted in the state of rejection, even though the plaintiffs intended to exercise their right of defense through an attorney-at-law, and thus,

(1) Article 17 (1) of the former Act on the Prevention of School Violence provides an aggressor student with an opportunity to state his/her opinion to the aggressor student and his/her guardian before requesting measures under Article 17 (1) of the same Act. In full view of the fact that an aggressor student needs counsel in the course of exercising his/her right to defense, such as stating the aggressor student and his/her guardian's opinion, it is reasonable to deem that the aggressor student has the right to have counsel as an attorney-at-law at a regional committee for a meeting prescribed by the Local Committee for

② The Plaintiffs and their parents wanted to attend a regional committee meeting held on December 18, 2019, with the attorney Kim Jong-soo, but the president of the Ulsan Youth Council North Korea, designated as the chairperson at the above meeting, refused to attend the meeting of the attorney Kim Jong-soo.

③ The plaintiffs’ attorneys-at-law did not state their opinions in writing or verbally before the above regional committee meeting, and the regional committee decided to take measures against the plaintiffs without stating their opinions.

(4) As to this, Article 3(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that "Except as otherwise expressly provided for in other Acts, this Act shall apply to the procedures for dispositions, reports, administrative pre-announcement of legislation, pre-announcement of legislation, and administrative guidance," and Article 24(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the School Violence Prevention Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 30441, Feb. 25, 2020; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the School Violence Prevention Act") shall apply to a local committee ex officio or upon application.

Article 12(1), (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the School Violence Prevention Act provides that "A person may attend a regional committee to make statements," and Article 12(1), (2), and the main sentence of Article 11(4) provides that an attorney-at-law may appoint an attorney-at-law as his/her agent, and an attorney-at-law appointed as his/her agent shall not be deemed as a special provision for the main sentence of Article 12(1), (3), (2), and the main sentence of Article 11(4) of the Administrative Procedures Act that provides that an attorney-at

⑤ In addition, the Defendant asserts that the instant disposition is legitimate because the Plaintiff’s guardian appeared at the local committee and sufficiently stated his opinion, it does not substantially hinder the Plaintiffs’ exercise of their right to defense. However, the time when the assistance of counsel, who is a legal expert, is the process of deliberation by the regional committee. Nevertheless, the local committee rejected the Plaintiffs’ representative’ attendance. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs were infringed on the essential contents of the exercise of their right to defense due to the lack of the representative’s assistance in the process of deliberation by

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

2) Sub-determination

Therefore, the instant disposition based on the resolution of the said regional committee ought to be revoked as it is unlawful (as long as the Plaintiff accepted the above procedural defect claims and revoked the instant disposition, the remaining procedural defect claims and the allegation of deviation or abuse of discretionary power are not determined).

3. Conclusion

If so, all of the plaintiffs' claims are reasonable, it is decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gung-sung

Judges Labor-Private Citizens

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.