The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. Details and details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) are students of the second grade 11 of the D High School.

B. On June 12, 2017, the D High School (hereinafter “instant school”) Autonomous Committee on Countermeasures against School Violence (hereinafter “the instant autonomous committee”) decided to transfer the Plaintiff based on Article 17(1)8 of the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against Violence (hereinafter “School Violence Prevention Act”), on the ground that “the Plaintiff and the Intervenor brought a dispute, etc. on May 8, 2017, and carried out fighting each other on the 2nd and 11nd of the 2nd and 11st of the 2nd, and the Plaintiff assessed the Intervenor’s head and knee face with knee and inflicted injury on the part of the Intervenor, such as his/her hair and knee he/she transfusion and he/she was suffering from an injury.”

C. On June 14, 2017, the Defendant rendered a transfer disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff according to the foregoing resolution.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 11, Eul's each entry in the evidence No. 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) procedural unlawfulness 1) The defendant is not only required to appoint the representatives of parents who were not elected through the general meeting of parents or the meeting of the representatives of parents and constitute the pertinent autonomous committee as members, but also the representatives of parents of the instant autonomous committee are only five persons who fall short of the majority.

Therefore, since the instant autonomous committee was defective in its formation, the instant disposition based on the resolution of the instant autonomous committee is unlawful.

(2) On June 12, 2017, the Plaintiff’s parents notified that the instant autonomous committee was held only on June 12, 2017 when the instant autonomous committee was held. The Plaintiff’s parents did not receive delivery of the Plaintiff’s act to be discussed at the instant autonomous committee.

The instant autonomous committee shall make prior notification under Article 21(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act to the Plaintiff’s parents.