1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal shall be the first instance.

1. The reasoning for this part of the court’s explanation is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the reasons for this part of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, this part of the court’s explanation is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

- Part 6 of the 2nd P elementary school "D elementary school" shall be added to "D elementary school located in Namyang-si."

To the 6th parallels under the 3th parallels, the following shall be applied:

F. The Plaintiff’s parents B and C filed an application for reexamination with the Gyeonggi-do Local Committee for Countermeasures against School Violence on August 10, 2018; however, it was dismissed on August 27, 2018. On October 26, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative adjudication with the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education administrative adjudication committee, but was dismissed on April 3, 2019 and served on May 28, 2019.

“”

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) procedural defect in the instant disposition ought to be revoked as the following procedural defect exists.

The plaintiff is also erroneous in failing to prepare a certificate of interview in the course of a parent interview by the organization in exclusive charge of school violence, and ② failure to submit G's opinion at the time of resolution by the autonomous committee.

However, there is no provision that an organization in exclusive charge of school violence shall prepare a written confirmation of interview in the course of a parent interview, or that it shall submit a written opinion of the teacher in charge at the time of resolution by the autonomous committee, and there is procedural error in the disposition of this case due to the above reasons.

Therefore, the above argument cannot be accepted.

A) As a member of an organization exclusively in charge of school violence (hereinafter “exclusive organization”) with respect to the cases of school violence between the Plaintiff and E, the I teachers affiliated with D elementary school constituting the autonomous committee set forth in Article 14 of the former Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against School Violence (amended by Act No. 16441, Aug. 20, 2019).