1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff was a student in the first grade of Daejeon D Middle School.

The Plaintiff and Daejeon E Middle School were in attendance at the instant private teaching institute (hereinafter “GLA”) located in Daejeon. The F, on March 18, 2016, when the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s friendly-gu wishing to attract female students or in good faith to attract female students during the activities of leaving the private teaching institute. However, in the instant private teaching institute corridor, the Plaintiff and F had a verbal violence and physical violence committed between the Plaintiff and F. In this process, the Plaintiff and F.

(hereinafter “instant case”). After the occurrence of the instant case, F’s mother reported school violence damages to E Middle School that F was assaulted by the Plaintiff on December 9, 2016.

On December 20, 2016, the Joint Committee for Countermeasures against School Violence (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Committee”) opened a meeting at a career curriculum curriculum curriculum classroom (hereinafter referred to as “instant meeting”) at the E Middle School (hereinafter referred to as “instant meeting”) and judged that both the Plaintiff and F constituted a family student suffering from school violence, and decided on the Plaintiff’s written apology under Article 17(1)1 of the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against School Violence (hereinafter referred to as “School Violence Prevention Act”).

The Defendant issued a written apology to the Plaintiff on December 23, 2016, in accordance with the instant commission’s resolution.

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). (In the instant case’s minutes, the Plaintiff’s parents did not want to have a mutual contact, but the Plaintiff’s parents want to hold the instant meeting in the place where both parents are located, on the following grounds: (a) there is no dispute with each other; (b) Gap’s evidence Nos. 2, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3; and (c) the Plaintiff’s overall purport of the instant disposition is legitimate.

Nevertheless, the instant commission did not confirm the Plaintiff’s parents and was completely isolated from the Plaintiff and F.