1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the “act prohibited in school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone” and the “act prohibited in the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone” (hereinafter “instant application”) to operate entertainment taverns in the area of 90 square meters of a 2nd floor building located in Asan City located in the relative Cleanup Zone (hereinafter “instant application site”).

B. On May 7, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant application was rejected.

(hereinafter "Disposition in this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3-6, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) in light of the location of a space where school education is practically conducted, such as school teachers, playgrounds, and auditoriums, the instant application is not located in school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone as prescribed by the school health laws and regulations; (b) the instant application is located in a general school, not in the principal school route for B students; (c) the instant application site and its noise do not directly affect B students; (d) there is no significant impact on learning and health sanitation; (e) the Cheongnam-do School Environmental Sanitation and Cleanup Committee decided as the “provisional” as a result of deliberation on the instant application around April 23, 2015; and (v) it is unclear whether the instant application site operation of entertainment tavern specifically causes any educational environment; and (vi) the disposition of this case is inconsistent with the equity in view of the circumstances where the application for prohibited acts for operating entertainment bars and the revocation of facilities was accepted within the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone of B school; and (vii) the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case is against the Plaintiff’s discretionary authority by deviating from the Plaintiff’s exercise of property rights.