1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

D Middle School Violence Autonomy Committee (hereinafter referred to as "self-governing Committee") decided to take measures against the Plaintiff, who was enrolled in the D Middle School after a meeting as of November 2, 2017 and November 9, 2017, against the reason for the measure that "the Plaintiff was injured by the head of Dong E who is a student in the toilet during a break time after the class of October 19, 2017," pursuant to Article 17 (1) of the School Violence Prevention and Countermeasures Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), "Prohibition of Contacting, Intimidation, and Retaliing (No. 2)," "five hours of contact, intimidation, and retaliation at the school", "five hours of service at the school (No. 3)" pursuant to paragraph (3), and four hours of special education for students and parents, respectively.

On November 10, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the measures under the above resolution of the autonomous committee.

The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the administrative appeals commission of the Incheon Metropolitan City Office of Education, and the said commission revoked the above disposition on January 17, 2018 and changed the disposition to a written apology.

(2) The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had no legal interest in seeking revocation of the instant disposition, since the Plaintiff had graduated from D Middle Schools, as the Plaintiff had already graduated from D Middle Schools. (hereinafter “instant disposition”). 【The grounds for recognition】 there is no dispute,” and the Defendant’s assertion as to the Plaintiff’s defense prior to the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff asserts that there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the instant disposition.

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

Judgment

In a case where no legal interest is infringed on by a disposition which loses its effect, such disposition is merely a legal relationship in the past, and thus, there is no legal interest to seek its revocation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Du6400, Mar. 22, 2012). In addition, if a ground for seeking revocation of a disposition simply seeks to restore the reputation of the society suffered from the disposition, it is nothing more than a de facto interest and thus, the legal interest seeking revocation of the disposition.