1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. An order of service rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on October 19, 2017.

1. 제1심판결의 인용 이 법원이 이 사건에 관하여 설시할 이유는, 제1심판결 제7쪽 박스 내부 제15행의 “①”을 “②”로, 제9쪽 제4행의 “구성된다”를 “구성한다”로, 제12쪽 표의 둘째 줄 첫째 칸의 “⑩”을 “⑪”로, 셋째 줄 첫째 칸의 “⑪”을 “⑩”으로, 제12쪽 표 아래 본문 제2행의 “⑩”을 “⑪”로 각 고치고, 제1심판결 중 징계재량권 일탈남용에 관한 당사자의 주장 및 이에 관한 판단 부분[2-가-3)항, 2-나-3)항, 3-다항 부분]을 아래 제2항과 같이 고쳐 쓰는 외에는 제1심판결 중 원고에 관한 그것과 같으므로, 민사소송법 제420조 본문에 의하여 이를 그대로 인용한다

(other than the conclusion in Paragraph 4). 2. Determination as to whether or not the disciplinary discretion has been abused or abused

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disciplinary action, including the instant order to publish a written apology (hereinafter “instant order”) among the instant disciplinary action, is more severe than the Plaintiff’s act, and thus, the instant disciplinary action constitutes an abuse of discretionary authority and thus null and void. The instant disciplinary action constitutes a violation of discretionary authority.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the disciplinary action against the plaintiff was lawful, since the disciplinary action against the plaintiff was taken at an educational level.

B. The disciplinary action against a student does not automatically be subject to judicial review solely on the ground that the disciplinary action against the student is an educational discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu2144, Nov. 22, 1991). If the exercise of the right to discipline or the determination of disciplinary action against the student constitutes a deviation or abuse of discretionary power, it shall be deemed unlawful and invalid.

However, among the disciplinary actions in this case, the disclosure company order is below.