징계조치처분취소 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The plaintiff is a student attending the first-year course of the D secondary school which is a public school located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the defendant is the head of the above school.
B. On July 12, 2017, the Plaintiff assaulted E in the same Ban as the Plaintiff and inflicted an injury on the part of the Plaintiff, which requires approximately 55 days of treatment.
C. On July 26, 2017, the Autonomous Committee on Countermeasures against School Violence in D Middle Schools (hereinafter “Autonomous Committee”) held a meeting and requested the Defendant to take measures to transfer (Article 17(1) of the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against School Violence (hereinafter “Act”) to the Plaintiff (Article 8), to contact with victim students, to prevent intimidation and retaliation (Article 2), to stop attendance (Article 6), and to five (30) days of special education (Article 30 hours), and to five (9) hours of special education for guardians (hereinafter “measures to transfer, etc.”). On July 31, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the measures to transfer (hereinafter “instant measures”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. To make entries in the attached statutes concerned;
3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., the instant disposition No. 1) does not state what kind of school violence was committed by the Plaintiff. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful by failing to present the grounds and reasons for the disposition contrary to Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act.
Before the meeting of the autonomous committee, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a statement stating that the case outline “A’s face is taken at the classroom’s appearance after the end of July 12, 2017,” and the instant disposition was not notified to the Plaintiff on the basis of the fact that the meeting of the autonomous committee had not been notified to the Plaintiff, such as questioning and discussions about sexual indecent acts that the Plaintiff had not been notified in advance.