1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff and D (hereinafter “victim students”) were enrolled in the first year in the E Middle School located in Ansan-si in 2016 (hereinafter “E”).

B. On September 29, 2017, the Autonomous Committee on Countermeasures against School Violence in E (hereinafter “instant Committee”) held a meeting of the instant Committee on the grounds that the Plaintiff exercised school violence against a victim student. Pursuant to Article 17(1)1, 2, 5, and 6 of the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against Violence (hereinafter “School Violence Prevention Act”), the Committee resolved on the Plaintiff’s written apology against the victim student, the prohibition of contact, intimidation, and retaliation against the victim student, the prohibition of retaliation against the victim student, the special education by a special internal or foreign expert, or the ten-day suspension of attendance, and the ten-day suspension of attendance.

C. On October 11, 2017, the head of E Middle School rendered the Plaintiff a disposition of written apology against the victim student, contact with the victim student, prohibition of intimidation and retaliation, special education by internal and external experts, or ten days of psychological treatment, and ten days of suspension of attendance.

F, who is the mother of a victim, has raised an objection to the above disposition and filed a petition for review with the Defendant Committee on October 26, 2017, and the Defendant Committee rendered a decision to change schools under Article 17 subparag. 8 of the School Violence Prevention Act (hereinafter “instant decision to review”) in addition to the original disposition against the Plaintiff on December 18, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 12, and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

3. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff's act does not constitute sexual assault since the plaintiff's act did not constitute sexual assault since the plaintiff's act was conducted with the victim student's consent.

Therefore, there is an error in the misunderstanding of facts in the review decision of this case.

Even if the plaintiff's act constitutes school violence, it is not a victim student, but the plaintiff.