Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant

Attorney Lee Lee-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Kim Yong-hoon

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. On October 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the prevention of school environmental sanitation and cleanup zones and facilities therein pursuant to the proviso to Article 6(1) of the School Health Act to newly construct and operate the first floor underground and the fifth floor accommodation on the site located in the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone of the Jeju Central Female Middle School (hereinafter referred to as the “instant school”).

B. Accordingly, on October 31, 2014, the Defendant held a school environmental sanitation and cleanup committee to deliberate on the Plaintiff’s above application, received opinions from the principal of the school of this case, and notified the Plaintiff that he does not accept the application for prohibited acts and cancellation of facilities (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed to the Jeju Special Self-Governing Provincial Office of Education, but the said commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on January 13, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (each number is issued), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff already operated a lodging business with the permission for accommodation business on the ground of the land adjacent to the instant land (hereinafter “the instant adjacent land”). The instant adjacent land is located within school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone and was deliberated upon by the Defendant for prohibited acts and facilities. In light of the location and shape of the instant land, there is no reason to treat the instant adjacent land differently from the instant adjacent land. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful in violation of the principle of equity, and thus, it is against the principle of equity.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Under the proviso of Article 6(1) of the School Health Act, the Superintendent of an Office of Education or a person designated by the Superintendent of an Office of Education or the Superintendent of an Office of Education determines whether an application for the cancellation of prohibited acts and facilities within school environmental sanitation and cleanup zones would cause no adverse effects on learning and school health. Measures to cancel or continue such prohibited acts and facilities are belonging to the discretionary acts of the relevant City/Do superintendent of education or the person designated by the Superintendent of an Office of Education. In order to ensure that such acts and facilities are unlawful by deviating from and abusing discretion, such acts and facilities are not only the kind and scale of the relevant facilities, the number of students at school, the surrounding environment, and the surrounding facilities together with other acts and facilities. Considering that such acts and facilities are prohibited, it is desirable for the relevant institution to reasonably provide education and training to ensure that such acts and facilities are harmful to learning and health of the relevant local government, as prescribed by the Constitution and the Local Education Autonomy Act, and to ensure that such acts and facilities are prohibited.

2) Examining the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged as follows: ① the instant land is located at a distance of 166 meters in a straight line from the boundary line of the entrance of the instant school, and 65 meters in a straight line from the site boundary line; ② students of 255 out of 789 students enrolled in the instant school use the land as a main school. ② If accommodation facilities of the first and fifth floors are constructed on the instant land, it appears that the removal of the instant land would have an impact on the school environment due to the removal of traffic congestion from the main and stopping of the accommodation, and ③ it appears that the building and accommodation facilities in the instant school would have an impact on the school environment, such as the removal of the instant land, and it appears that the removal of the instant land would have an impact on the school environment and the removal of the instant land by taking account of the fact that the building and accommodation facilities in the instant land would have an impact on the individual removal of the instant land, and thus, it appears that the individual removal of the instant land would have an impact on the removal of the instant land.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Notarial decoration;

Complaints

▣ 학교보건법

Article 5 (Establishment of School Environmental Sanitation and Cleanup Zone)

(1) To protect health, sanitation, and learning environments in schools, the Superintendent of an Office of Education shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

A school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone shall be established and publicly announced pursuant to the School Environmental Sanitation and Cleanup Zone. In such cases, the school environmental sanitation and Cleanup Zone

No more than 200 meters from the boundary line of a school or of a planned school site shall be exceeded.

(5) The authority of the superintendent of each district office of education under paragraph (1) may be delegated to the head of each district office of education,

(c)

Article 6 (Prohibited Acts, etc. in School Environmental Sanitation and Cleanup Zone)

(1) Anyone shall conduct acts and facilities falling under any of the following subparagraphs in school environmental sanitation and cleanup zones:

section 2, 3, 6, or 10 shall not be applicable in any zone prescribed by Presidential Decree: Provided, That in any zone prescribed by Presidential Decree, subparagraphs 2, 3,

The Superintendent of an Office of Education or the Superintendent of an Office of Education among the acts and facilities prescribed in subparagraphs 1, 12 through 18 and 20;

A state of bad influence on learning and school health and sanitation after deliberation by the school environmental sanitation and cleanup committee.

activities and facilities deemed not to be activities and facilities shall be excluded.

13. Hotels, inn, and inn;

▣ 학교보건법 시행령

Article 3 (School Environmental Sanitation and Cleanup Zone)

(1) Pursuant to Article 5 (1) of the Act, the Superintendent of an Office of Education of a City/Do (hereinafter referred to as the "superintendent of education") shall do so.

(hereinafter referred to as the " Cleanup Zone") In order to establish a Cleanup Zone, it shall be divided into the absolute Cleanup Zone and the relative Cleanup Zone.

In addition, the absolute Cleanup Zone shall be established in a school entrance (in the case of a planned school site, the entrance of the school to be established);

An area located within a 50-meter radius from a place scheduled to be placed (referring to a place scheduled to be placed), and the relative Cleanup Zone shall be:

Absolutely fixed areas within a 200-meter radius from the boundary of a school or planned school site;

the area, other than the chemical zone, shall be the end.