2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The Defendant is a private school corporation, and the Plaintiff was admitted to the Department of Social Welfare at C University affiliated with the Defendant in 2014.

B. The 12 students of the Department of Social Welfare at C University organized the Emergency Countermeasure Committee around December 2016 (hereinafter “Emergency Countermeasure Committee”), and the Plaintiff was elected as the chairperson by the vote of the members of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee.

C. On August 16, 2017, the Defendant’s C University Student Guidance Disciplinary Committee (hereinafter “the Disciplinary Committee”) rendered a resolution of disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground of “a student’s reputation in violation of this part as a student,” under Article 17(1)1 of the Regulations on the Disciplinary Punishment of Students,” and Article 17(1)9 of the same Regulation, “a person who, even if having committed an act falling under arms, committed an act falling under the category of the matter, is subject to heavy restriction” (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”), and notified the Plaintiff on the same day.

On August 25, 2017, the Plaintiff demanded the Standing Committee to review the instant disciplinary action. However, the Disciplinary Committee made the same resolution as the instant disciplinary action on September 6, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6, 7, 8, Eul evidence 27, 29, 32, witness E's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s instant disciplinary action was procedural defect that took place without giving sufficient opportunity to make statements to the Plaintiff. 2) It is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s act as grounds of the instant disciplinary action as constituting grounds of disciplinary action. Even if there exist grounds of disciplinary action, the instant disciplinary action is null and void since it deviates from the scope of discretion

B. On August 9, 2017, the Plaintiff was given an opportunity to present himself in the disciplinary procedure and state his opinion, and the instant case.