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

A. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for prohibited acts and removal of facilities in the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone to change the singing practice room operating on the second floor from among the fourth floor buildings located in the Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu (hereinafter “instant building”) located in the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone of B middle school (hereinafter “B”) to an entertainment drinking house.

B. On March 6, 2014, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that the instant building was prohibited from prohibited acts and facilities in school environmental sanitation and cleanup zones after deliberation by the School Environmental Sanitation and Cleanup Committee pursuant to the proviso of Article 6(1) of the School Health Act, on the premise that the building was located far from the B Middle School entrance 184.2 meters from the boundary line, and 171.5 meters from the boundary line (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 6, purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the building of this case is located at a place less than 205.39 meters from the entrance of the B Middle School and 190.13 meters from the boundary line, and only 1/3 of the building of this case is located within the relative Cleanup Zone. Since singing practice room is already in operation in the relative Cleanup Zone of the B Middle School, there is no possibility that the plaintiff's additional operation of the entertainment drinking house on the second floor of the building of this case does not adversely affect students' learning or school health and sanitation. The building of this case is not in the principal school of students, but in the middle school, it is not visible in the B middle school. The neighboring area of the building of this case is against the principle of equity, refusing only the plaintiff's application even though the plaintiff's application is in operation of a large number of entertainment drinking houses in the commercial area, and the revenue of the plaintiff and his dependents is due to singing practice room business, and it is threatened with an increase in their lives.