1. The Defendant’s disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on June 26, 2018 confirms that it is null and void.

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

Details of the disposition

On June 15, 2018, the Defendant received school violence cases (hereinafter “school violence cases in this case”) with the purport that the Defendant committed physical assault and speech violence against the Plaintiff and the same class student E, F, G, and H from the beginning of March 2018 to the same class student I (hereinafter “victim student”).

In accordance with Article 17(4) and (1)6 of the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against Violence in Schools (hereinafter “School Violence Prevention Act”), the Defendant issued a ten-day emergency measure for the suspension of attendance to the Plaintiff and other aggressor students, and notified the Plaintiff on June 26, 2018, following deliberation by the Autonomous Committee for Countermeasures against D Middle School Violence (hereinafter “instant autonomous committee”), that “patical and serious school violence” as the ground for the measure is “patching ten-day suspension of attendance,” and that the Plaintiff shall take five-day special education for transfer, special education, and one-day special education for guardian.”

On July 2, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mediation Committee of Disciplinary Punishment on Students (hereinafter referred to as the “Disciplinary Mediation Committee”). On August 9, 2018, the Discipline Mediation Committee maintained the ten-day suspension of attendance among the dispositions on June 26, 2018, and changed the remainder to the measures “in writing apology, the prohibition of contact, intimidation, and retaliation against victim students, the replacement of classes, the number of special education, and the number of special education for guardians,” and the five-hour suspension of attendance.

(2) The Plaintiff’s procedural defect in the instant disposition as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition, as seen earlier, exists as follows: (a) there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition; (b) the entry of the evidence Nos. 4, 6, and 8; (c) the entry of the evidence Nos. 1 through 3; and (d) the overall purport of the pleading; and (c) the procedural defect of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition.

A counseling teacher J to which an autonomous committee is defective shall consult with an aggressor student and a victim student in connection with the school violence in this case and shall result in such consultation.