1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition of special education for guardians shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff and D are students who were enrolled in the first year in C High School at 2016.

No person was involved in a language or assault that constitutes a measure;

Article 17(1)1 of the School Violence Prevention Act (hereinafter “School Violence Prevention Act”) Article 17(3) of the Act on the Prevention of School Violence(hereinafter “School Violence Prevention Act”) Article 17(9) of the Act on the Prevention of Violence, Article 17(3)2 of the Act on the Prevention of Violence (hereinafter “Special Education 3 Hours for Students”) provides that “The measures to be taken shall be taken since the victim could feel as a perpetrator and feel able to feel that he could be seen and she would be committed.”

B. On May 9, 2016 and May 16, 2016, Chigh School School Violence Autonomous Committee (hereinafter “Autonomous Committee”) held meetings on May 9, 2016 and resolved on the following measures pursuant to the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against School Violence (hereinafter “School Violence Prevention Act”), and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact on May 17, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant First Disposition,” and “the remaining disposition,” among the above measures, shall be deemed to have been taken for special education of guardians.

The Plaintiff appealed to the first and second dispositions of this case and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education Administrative Appeals, but the said commission dismissed it on August 30, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2, and Eul No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine whether the part concerning a claim for revocation of a disposition No. 1 among the instant lawsuit is lawful ex officio.

Since the other party to the first disposition of this case is not the plaintiff but the plaintiff's guardian, it cannot be deemed that the first disposition of this case causes a direct change in the plaintiff's rights and duties.

Therefore, this part of the lawsuit is unlawful, as the plaintiff has no legal interest in seeking revocation of the first disposition of this case.

3. Whether the disposition No. 2 of this case is legitimate