1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition of special education for guardians shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff and D (hereinafter “victims students”) are students who were enrolled in the first-class four classes in the first-class and fourth-class in the C High School in Yongsan-gu, Busan Metropolitan City in 2016.

During the period from October to July of high school from March 1, 200 to July of high school, the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress by asking a victim student responsible for his/her shares in the reflectment room and demanding the victim student to pay for his/her lost shares in return for the value of his/her shares. The measures taken are taken by a victim student. Article 17(9) of the School Violence Prevention Act of 5 days (40 hours) of the Act on the Prevention of School Violence (parents) by a guardian (parents) of Article 17(1)5 of the Act on the Prevention of School Violence (5 hours

B. On July 13, 2016, when the parents of victim students reported the Plaintiff’s continuous collection of money and valuables to the teachers attending school on July 13, 2016, the Chigh School Autonomous Committee on Countermeasures against School Violence (hereinafter “Autonomous Committee”) held a meeting on July 26, 2016 and December 12, 2016, decided to take the following measures pursuant to the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against School Violence (hereinafter “School Violence Prevention Act”), and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of this on December 15, 2016.

(2) The Plaintiff’s special education completion disposition against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant No. 1”) and the special education completion disposition against his/her guardian (hereinafter “instant No. 2”). The Plaintiff’s special education completion disposition against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “this case’s No. 1 disposition”). The Plaintiff’s ground for recognition is without dispute, the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1, 9, and

2. We examine whether the part concerning the revocation of the second disposition among the lawsuit in this case is lawful ex officio.

Since the other party to the second disposition of this case is not the plaintiff but the plaintiff's guardian, it cannot be deemed that the second disposition of this case causes a direct change in the plaintiff's rights and obligations.

Therefore, this part of the lawsuit is unlawful, as the plaintiff has no legal interest in seeking revocation of the second disposition of this case.

3. Whether the first disposition in this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion.