1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff is a public school student who was enrolled in D High School 9th grade, D High School established and operated by Seoul Special Metropolitan City, E and F in the first grade and nineth grade of the same school, and G in the first grade and eightth grade of the same school.

On June 27, 2017, the Autonomous Committee on Countermeasures against School Violence in D High Schools deliberated on the case that the Plaintiff, E, and F (hereinafter collectively referred to as “aggressing students”) spreads false facts that G had sexual intercourse with other students, and decided on June 28, 2016 on the following: (a) the prohibition of contact, intimidation, and retaliation against Plaintiff and E; (b) the disposition of 5 days of internal services; (c) the disposition of written apology with respect to F; and (d) the disposition of psychological counseling and advice with respect to G who is a victim student; and (e) the disposition of counseling and advice with respect to G who is a victim student.

On June 28, 2017, the Defendant rendered each disposition against the Plaintiff, E, F, and G in the same manner as the above ruling was rendered.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office of Education for an administrative appeals commission, but was dismissed on February 28, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff asserted the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as a whole, and the written evidence No. 1, No. 1, No. 3, and Nos. 1, 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the disposition of this case as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, is asked by H, who is a first-year student of D High School, and the plaintiff stated that H, as he was aware of the fact that "G had a sexual intercourse with G, with G," and further there was no word such as "G was algora and I," and there was no expression that "G was al was algora," and intentionally did not spread false facts about G.

Even if there were grounds for the disciplinary action of spreading false facts, the Plaintiff was not limited to the intent to see G, and it was difficult to see that the private dialogue with H would have been disseminated. In light of such circumstances, the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused the disciplinary discretion.

It is as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.