A court ruled that if the school did not clearly specify and explain the reasons for expelling a student, it constitutes a significant procedural defect and the expulsion should be canceled.
On the 27th, according to the legal community, the Seoul Administrative Court's Second Division (presided over by Ko Eun-seol) ruled in a case filed by student A and his parents against the principal of B School for the invalidation and cancellation of discipline, ordering that the expulsion be rescinded.
Student A was in the second year at B School in 2023. According to the ruling, A yelled and cursed in front of the auditorium door before the start of the school festival performance in August of that year, and also forcibly opened the auditorium door. It was also revealed that he occupied the front seat without permission, rather than his designated seat.
In an anonymous survey conducted after the festival for all students at B School, responses indicated that "A and other students made sexual remarks regarding the female student who came up on stage during the festival and jeered and cursed at friends who did not meet appearance standards."
B School expelled A based on this situation and the survey content. The expulsion letter stated "failure to maintain basic conduct."
In response, A and his parents filed an administrative lawsuit claiming that the expulsion was unlawful. They argued that the grounds and reasons for the expulsion were not presented at all, which violated the Administrative Procedures Act. Article 23 of the Administrative Procedures Act states that when an administrative disposition is made, the basis and reasons must be presented to the parties involved. They also claimed that the special disciplinary committee did not meet the requirement of two-thirds majority approval from attending members when deciding on the expulsion.
The court sided with A. The court stated, "The facts constituting the basis for the disposition were not specifically documented, causing significant hindrance to the plaintiff's right to defend himself." It further noted, "The special disciplinary committee that decided on the expulsion reached a vote of 4 in favor out of 7 members, which did not meet the school's requirement for two-thirds majority approval, resulting in serious procedural defects."
However, the court did not accept A's claim to nullify the expulsion itself. The court remarked, "There appear to be objective circumstances that could lead one to mistakenly think that the series of actions taken by the plaintiff during the festival are subject to discipline."