logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.12.18 2018누57263
전학처분등취소
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the parts to be filled or added below, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance, the "victim student" of one, three, and three shall be read as "H"; the "victim student" of the 8-9 shall be read as "H, I, and the "victim student"; the 6th 4, six, six, six, eight, under seven, five, five, under five, two, and one under two, one as "H", respectively.

Part 4 through 5 of the first instance judgment (hereinafter referred to as "paragraph 2") shall be deleted.

The following shall be added to the 8-12-13 of the judgment of the first instance.

(In addition, as long as the commission of this case grants the plaintiffs and their protectors an opportunity to state their opinions at the meeting of this case, the contents delivered before the meeting of this case are somewhat insufficient and thus the first disposition of this case cannot be deemed to be unlawful) is added to the following: 9-10 of the first judgment of this case:

⑤ In particular, inasmuch as the purport of Disposition B was that the Plaintiffs sustained emotional distress by continuously fluoring or fluoring victim students during the period up to one month, considering the period, frequency, and aspects of the above act, it is difficult to view that the above act specifically presented the date, time, place, and circumstances without any omission, and that the act complies with Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act. Moreover, only the contents written in the notice of the result of the measure taken by the commission of this case (Evidence A 1) can sufficiently understand whether the act of the Plaintiffs is included in the reason for the measure, as set forth below, the first instance judgment 10 to 4-6 (Case B) of the first instance judgment is written.

② The Plaintiff A puts the H’s writing into the P, and the Plaintiff D puts the comments to that end.

arrow