1. The plaintiff's appeal as to the claim that is primarily changed in this court is dismissed.

2.The Court.

1. The Plaintiff sought from the first instance court to revoke the disposition on the replacement of class and the ten-day disposition on the suspension of attendance from November 2, 2017. The judgment of the first instance court dismissed the ten-day disposition on November 2, 2017 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s disposition on the suspension of attendance from November 2, 2017 cannot be deemed a disposition that specifically and directly affects the Plaintiff’s existence or scope of the Plaintiff’s rights and obligations. The Plaintiff accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation on the ground that the procedural defect exists and thus is unlawful.

On the other hand, only the Plaintiff appealed the part against the Plaintiff, and this Court revised the purport of the claim by adding the confirmation of the invalidity of the Emergency Measure to the preliminary claim on November 2, 2017.

Therefore, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the cancellation of the ten-day disposition of suspension of attendance at the court on November 2, 2017 and the claim for confirmation of the invalidity of the Emergency Measure.

2. The grounds for this part of the disposition by the court are as stated in Paragraph (1) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

3. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that an emergency measure was taken by the autonomous committee upon ratification. As such, the Defendant’s acceptance of ratification by the autonomous committee and notification 10 days of the suspension of attendance to the Plaintiff on November 2, 2017 constitutes an independent measure that is separate from the instant emergency measure.

On November 2, 2017, the defendant's notification of the suspension of attendance on November 2, 2017 should be revoked because the autonomous committee's procedural defect not lawfully constituted in accordance with the school violence prevention method is illegal.

B. The reasoning for this decision is as stated in Article 2-B(b) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (the part from 3.1 p.m. to 4.7 p.m. of the judgment of the court of first instance). Thus, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the Civil Procedure Act.