1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3...

1. The first instance court dismissed all the primary claims written in the plaintiffs' claims, and accepted all the conjunctive claims written in the plaintiffs' claims.

Accordingly, since only the defendant appealed against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the plaintiffs' preliminary claims.

2. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case being cited or added as stated in paragraph (3). Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(The grounds alleged by the Defendant in this Court while filing an appeal are not significantly different from the contents claimed by the Defendant in the first instance court, and even if all the evidence submitted to the first instance court and this court are examined, the fact-finding and the judgment of the first instance court are deemed justifiable). 3. The part which was cited or added to the

A. On the fourth page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the term “2.” in the last sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance is cut to “3.”

1) The main part of the judgment of the court of first instance, No. 4, 27, added the part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to "2. The main part of the lawsuit of this case concerning the revocation of each of the dispositions of suspension of attendance."

A. The Defendant asserts that, as the main safety defense of this case, “this case’s disposition of suspension of attendance (8 days) against the rest of the plaintiffs except the plaintiffs A and S has already been executed, there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of each of the dispositions of suspension of attendance by the above plaintiffs. Thus, the part seeking revocation of each of the dispositions of suspension of attendance by the above plaintiffs in this case is unlawful.”

(b) Even if the effect of the disposition has already ceased to exist due to an execution of a scambry or a disposition, there is benefit in the action, if there is a legal interest that can be restored due to the cancellation of

Article 25 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act shall provide the principal with the academic achievement, personality, etc. of the student.