1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff and D (hereinafter “victim students”) were enrolled in the first and eighth grade of the E Middle School located in Ansan-si (hereinafter “E”) in 2016.

B. On September 29, 2017, the Autonomous Committee on Countermeasures against School Violence in E (hereinafter “instant Committee”) held a meeting of the instant Committee on the grounds that the Plaintiff exercised school violence against a victim student. Pursuant to Article 17(1)1, 2, 5, and 6 of the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against Violence (hereinafter “School Violence Prevention Act”), the Committee resolved on the Plaintiff’s written apology against the victim student, the prohibition of contact, intimidation, and retaliation against the victim student, the prohibition of retaliation against the victim student, the special education by a special internal or foreign expert, or the ten-day suspension of attendance, and the ten-day suspension of attendance.

C. On October 11, 2017, the head of E Middle School rendered the Plaintiff a disposition of written apology against the victim student, contact with the victim student, prohibition of intimidation and retaliation, special education by internal and external experts, or ten days of psychological treatment, and ten days of suspension of attendance.

On October 26, 2017, F, who is the mother of a victim, has raised an objection to the above disposition and filed a request for reexamination with the Defendant. On December 18, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision to change schools under Article 17 subparag. 8 of the School Violence Prevention Act (hereinafter “instant decision”) to the Plaintiff in addition to the original disposition.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as specified;

3. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff did not force the victim student to attend school, and the Plaintiff’s act does not constitute sexual assault, since the Plaintiff’s act did not constitute sexual assault.

Therefore, there is an error in the misunderstanding of facts in the review decision of this case.

Even if the plaintiff's act constitutes school violence, the victim student is not a victim student.