1. Ten hours of transfer, special education for students, and five hours of special education for guardians, which the defendant transferred to the plaintiffs on January 21, 2020.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) are students attending J Middle School (hereinafter “instant school”).

B. On November 20, 2019, the Autonomous Committee on Countermeasures against School Violence (hereinafter “Autonomous Committee”) adopted a resolution on November 20, 2019, on the grounds that the Plaintiffs exercised school violence against intervenors and N, with regard to the prohibition of contact, intimidation, and retaliation against intervenors and N, the suspension of attendance ten days, the suspension of class replacement, the 10 hours of special education, and five hours of completion of special education by guardians.

C. On November 26, 2019, an intervenor filed a petition for reexamination with the Regional Committee for Countermeasures against School Violence in Ulsan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Local Committee”), and on December 18, 2019, the Regional Committee decided to change the dispositions against the Plaintiffs to five hours of special education for guardians under Article 17(1)8 of the former Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against School Violence (amended by Act No. 16441, Aug. 20, 2019; hereinafter “former School Violence Prevention Act”) and Article 17(3) of the same Act (hereinafter “former School Violence Prevention Act”).

On January 21, 2020, the Defendant rendered a disposition of transfer to the Plaintiffs for ten hours of special education for students and five hours of special education for guardians (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 was accepted only the Intervenor’s unilateral assertion during the initial investigation process of school violence, and the relevant school did not undergo prior notification procedures under Article 21(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act in the course of deliberation and resolution by the regional committee, and did not properly provide the Plaintiffs with an opportunity to state their opinion under Article 22(3) of the Administrative Procedures Act, and the attorney-at-law appointed by the Plaintiffs as their agents for deliberation.