1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, E, and F are students attending the second and fifth grade of D High Schools, G are students in the second and second grade of the same school, and H are students in the second and sixth grade of the same school.

B. On June 22, 2016, the Autonomous Committee on Countermeasures against School Violence at D High Schools (hereinafter “Autonomous Committee”) adopted a meeting of the autonomous committee on the grounds that “the Plaintiff, E, G, and H had expressed verbal violence and assault to F (hereinafter “instant harmful act”)” (hereinafter “instant meeting of the autonomous committee”), and resolved on each measure of “social service 20 hours” and “ class replacement” under Article 17(1)4 and 7 of the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against School Violence (hereinafter “School Violence Prevention Act”), and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the aforementioned resolution by the autonomous committee on June 27, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant community service order” and “the measure to replace the class of this case”, and the above two dispositions are collectively referred to as the “instant disposition”). 【The grounds for recognition” in the absence of dispute, entry in the evidence Nos. 3 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant received a written statement from the Plaintiff on three occasions in a strong atmosphere, and did not conduct a proper investigation into the matter, and did not give the Plaintiff an opportunity to make a statement at the time of the meeting of the instant autonomous committee.

B) At the time of the meeting of the instant autonomous committee, the Defendant did not explain or guide the Plaintiff at the time of the meeting of the autonomous committee pursuant to Article 13 of the School Violence Prevention Act, and did not explain or guide the exclusion, challenge, and avoidance system of the members under Article 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. It is unclear whether the members of the autonomous committee elected through the parents plenary meeting, and whether all the persons who participated in the meeting are commissioned as members of the committee.