1. The Defendant’s written apology against the Plaintiff A on June 2, 2017, the prohibition of retaliation, the school’s service, the class replacement, and the replacement of the class.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff A is a student attending the D secondary school located in the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the plaintiff B and C are the parents of the plaintiff A.

- A related person - A - A - A - A - A - A - A - A - A - A - B - A - B - B - B - B - B - B - B - B - B - B - B - B - B - B - B - B - B - B - B - B - B - at the playground on May 19, 2017, and during this process, Plaintiff A suffered physical violence in his/her hand, etc., and at the point of the trial, Plaintiff A puts secondary violence to E. at the male escape room during the point of occupation. Measures against aggressor students - W - W - W Dogs under Article 17 (1) of the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against Violence in Schools (Article 17 (1) 1), prohibition of contact, intimidation (Article 2), and replacement of classes at a school (Article 7)

B. At a meeting of the autonomous committee held on June 1, 2017, the D Middle School Violence Autonomous Committee (hereinafter “instant autonomous committee”) resolved the following matters (hereinafter “instant resolution”) on the ground that the Plaintiff committed school violence (hereinafter “instant resolution”).

C. On June 2, 2017, in accordance with the resolution of the above autonomous committee, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff A a disposition of each of the above measures and five hours of special education completion under Article 17(3) of the School Violence Prevention Act, and five hours of special education completion under the same provision to the Plaintiff B and C (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 7, 8, 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is legitimate in light of the grounds for disposition and relevant statutes.

The Plaintiffs seek confirmation of the invalidity of the instant disposition on the grounds that the instant disposition was defective as follows, and the instant disposition is preliminary.