beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s expulsion from school against the Plaintiff on October 30, 2015 confirms that the expulsion from school is null and void.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is an educational foundation operating E High School, and the Plaintiff is a student who was enrolled in the first year in E High School as of 2015.
B. On October 28, 2015, the guidance committee for E High School (hereinafter “instant guidance committee”) held a meeting with the Plaintiff’s “non-compliance with repeated instructions and violations of school regulations” and “Assault against F, a teacher affiliated with E High School” as an agenda item. The above guidance committee decided to take an expulsion against the Plaintiff. On October 30, 2015, the head of E High School taken an expulsion from school (hereinafter “instant expulsion from school”) against the Plaintiff.
C. The E High School prepared a “school student case report” with respect to the expulsion from school of this case, and the outline of the case described in the above report is as follows.
On October 20, 2015, the summary of the instant case: (a) in the corridor of the second floor of this Sub-section 16:33, the principal school teacher F was in charge of autonomous learning supervision. During the instant period of supervision, the school teacher F refused to point out the Plaintiff’s uniforms from the second floor of the second floor to the 1st half of the year and the 8th class, and requested correction several times; (b) neglected to do so; (c) the school teacher F was able to keep the student’s body less than the lower part of the relevant student, but only once the student was pushed down, and again her head behind the escape. The relevant student was dumped, her body was frighted, her back, and her entrance into the second floor of the instant case. In order to ensure the student’s identity, the student refused to comply with instructions in the process of checking the student’s identity, and the student fell beyond the upper part of the curriculum, and the student again fell out of the scope of danger to life (see this case’s.).