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 December 16, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired a game room (hereinafter “instant game room”) with the first underground floor and the fifth underground floor located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”) located in Seongbuk-gu (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. The instant building is located at a point 167 meters away from the boundary line of a nearby C Elementary School in a straight line, and is located within the relative cleanup zone among school environmental sanitation and cleanup zones under the School Health Act.

In addition, the above building is located at a distance of 128 meters from the boundary of a neighboring site for the establishment of another elementary school.

C. On January 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for prohibited acts and cancellation of facilities in school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone (hereinafter “application for cancellation of this case”) to conduct general game providing business with the trade name “D” in the instant game room.

On February 5, 2015, after deliberation by the School Environmental Sanitation and Cleanup Committee, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the rejection of the motion for rescission of this case (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is not located in the main passage or club of C Elementary School students, and the instant game site is likely to be perceived inside and outside the game room in the underground, and it is difficult for elementary school students to have a strong interest or interest in entering the game room because it is an adult game room.

The place where the game room of this case was installed is the place where the game room was cancelled, and the game room business was conducted. Since the game room and the F game room had been operated around, the plaintiff accepted the game room of this case with trust and awareness of the entire property.

Therefore, the principle of proportionality that only the plaintiff refuses to cancel the prohibition area.