2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. On February 14, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted an assessment report on educational environment to the superintendent of education of Gangwon-do in order to establish a kindergarten C (hereinafter “instant kindergarten”).

On April 23, 2012, the head of the Gangwon-do District Education Office of Education notified the Plaintiff of the approval of the kindergarten establishment plan, and on May 14, 2012, the establishment and public announcement of the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone for the instant kindergarten E in the notification of the Gangwon-do District Education Office of Education was made, and on January 23, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a disposition to authorize the establishment of the instant kindergarten against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition to authorize the establishment”).

B. On April 21, 2014, the Defendant Intervenor filed an administrative appeal with the Defendant seeking revocation of the instant authorization of establishment against the Plaintiff.

On June 19, 2014, the Defendant rendered a ruling revoking the authorization for the establishment of the instant case on the grounds that the Intervenor’s stable (hereinafter “instant emission facilities”), which is an absolute prohibited facility, in the relative Cleanup Zone of the instant kindergarten, was unable to grant authorization for the establishment of the instant kindergarten, and that the Plaintiff was negligent in the Plaintiff, such as preparing and submitting a report on the assessment of educational environment even with the knowledge of such fact that the Plaintiff did not have any facilities prohibited in the report on

(hereinafter referred to as “instant adjudication disposition”). 【The ground for recognition” has no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant ruling and disposition are lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) that the supplementary intervenor is unable to operate the discharge facility of this case by the supplementary intervenor (A) is due to the validity of public notice on the establishment of school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone, and does not cause infringement only due to the establishment authorization disposition of this case. Thus, the supplementary intervenor is school environmental sanitation.