The Seoul Administrative Court said on the 16th that it has increased its dedicated panels for handling school violence cases from two to four to respond to the rising trend in such cases.
The Seoul Administrative Court, the nation's only administrative specialty court, has operated dedicated panels for school violence since Feb. 2023. In the first year, it formed three single-judge panels by assigning one presiding judge with more than 20 years of legal experience and two judges with more than 10 years. From 2024 to 2025, it ran only two panels with two judges who each had over 10 years of experience.
All judges to be assigned to the four single-judge panels have been designated as presiding judges with more than 20 years of legal experience. There will be one per panel, four in total. Drawing on experience such as serving as research judges at the Supreme Court on constitutional and administrative matters or handling numerous administrative cases including school violence, as well as raising children of elementary school age or older, they will preside over school violence cases.
School violence cases are rapidly increasing. Recently, the number of school violence cases filed each year with the administrative court was 51 in 2022, 71 in 2023, 98 in 2024, and 134 last year.
Generally, in school violence cases, the principal issues the first disposition. If a party objects, they may seek a review by the metropolitan or provincial office of education's School Violence Committee. If they still object to the committee's decision, they can file an administrative lawsuit to obtain the court's judgment.
An official at the administrative court said, "Many of the cases filed with the court involve school violence that is not minor," but noted, "Lately, there is a growing tendency to define disputes among students too broadly as school violence and turn them into conflicts."
The administrative court cited a case in which it annulled a disposition where an office of education support deemed conduct to be school violence and took measures, even though it could not be considered school violence.
Student A, the plaintiff, told student B, "Your makeup is passable, but your bare face is ugly," and "Your real look is so different from your photos that it's a scam," criticizing their appearance, and was reported for school violence. The administrative court said the reporting student may have felt displeased by the appearance-related remarks, but cautioned against subsuming them under school violence, which is conduct that causes mental suffering, and annulled all measures under the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures Against School Violence.
Student C, the plaintiff, said during a retreat, "This is f—ing absurd," after other students broke rules and ate during the retreat, and was reported for school violence. The administrative court said such criticism is something the reporting students, who caused the situation, must tolerate, and that labeling it school violence would excessively infringe on C's freedom of expression, providing the reason for canceling the measures.