1. On November 20, 2018, the Defendant issued a five-day disposition of suspension of attendance against the Plaintiff on November 20, 2018, a ten-hour measure of special education, and a guardian.

1. Circumstances and details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a student attending a D High School in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E.

B. On November 20, 2018, the Autonomous Committee on Countermeasures against School Violence at D High Schools resolved that the Plaintiff may be ordered to take the five-day measure of suspension of attendance, ten-hour measure of completion of special education, and five-hour measure of completion of special education for guardians for the following reasons:

(hereinafter the above resolution was made in 2018, the Autonomous Committee for Countermeasures against School Violence at D High Schools (hereinafter “the instant school width”). The Defendant issued each of the above dispositions against the Plaintiff on the same day according to the above resolution.

(hereinafter referred to as “each disposition of this case” . Grounds for action: The Plaintiff did not directly state the agreement on the back side of F in the process of disputing with F, but did not state the agreement on each disposition of this case, which was discussed with F. However, the time when the Plaintiff asserted with F is around November 16, 2018.

Measures taken against the plaintiff: - Five days of suspension of attendance under Article 17 (1) 6 of the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against Violence (hereinafter referred to as the "School Violence Prevention Act") - Ten hours of special education under Article 17 (3) of the School Violence Prevention Act - Five hours of special education for guardians under Article 17 (9) of the School Violence Prevention Act - There is no dispute over the number of hours of special education for guardians under Article 17 (9) of the School Violence Prevention Act - five hours of special education for guardians /

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The procedural illegality of each of the dispositions in the instant case is found) pursuant to Article 13(1) of the School Violence Prevention Act, the election of the members representing parents of the Autonomous Committee on Countermeasures against School Violence ought to be conducted at

① However, in light of the fact that it is difficult to view that 350 parents attending the general meeting of parents on March 23, 2018 were present at each school-level meeting that all the members representing parents of the instant school-level were elected, and that there was no procedure to ask for consent to the election of members representing parents at the general meeting of parents, it can be deemed that the members representing parents of the instant school-level group were directly elected at the general meeting of parents.