1. The Defendant’s disposition to replace the class against the Plaintiff on October 4, 2018 is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff and E (hereinafter referred to as “victim students”) are students attending the first grade of the D Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as “instant school”).

From March 200 to March 200, the Plaintiff’s action that the victim student wanted to take part in the school (hereinafter “instant action”) was taken in the course of his/her behavior, such as memory and accurate date and frequency, but the teacher at school failed to memory in the register of life). On October 4, 2018, the School Violence Autonomy Committee of the instant school (hereinafter “the instant autonomous committee”) requested the Defendant to provide counseling and advice to the Defendant in accordance with Article 17(1)1, 5, 7, and 17(2) of the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against Violence (hereinafter “School Violence Prevention Act”) on the grounds of the following action (hereinafter “instant action”), and requested the Defendant to provide counseling and advice to the Defendant pursuant to Article 16(1)1 and 16(1) of the School Violence Prevention Act on the part of the victim student.

(hereinafter “each of the dispositions of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The respective dispositions of this case are unlawful on the following grounds: (a) the absence of dispute; (b) the entries of Gap Nos. 1 and 2; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings.

The minutes of the instant autonomous committee’s procedural defect and the notice on the result of the disposition against the Plaintiff did not specify the Plaintiff’s school violence regarding the victim. The Plaintiff confirmed the Plaintiff’s specific act through the consultation date of the teacher in charge only during the litigation process. As such, the Defendant violated the duty of presentation of reasons under Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act.

The statements of victim students, which are the basis of each of the dispositions of this case, are substantive defects.