1. On March 6, 2018, the Defendant’s request to the Plaintiff for the exclusion of prohibited acts and facilities within an educational environment protection zone.

1. On February 21, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for prohibited acts and exclusion from facilities within the educational environment protection zone in order to operate entertainment taverns under Article 36(1)3 of the Food Sanitation Act with the aim of operating 90.28 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) among the 1st underground living facilities in Seongdong-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government.

On March 6, 2018, under the premise that the instant building is located within a relative protection zone (not less than 50 meters but not more than 200 meters from the boundary of C secondary high schools) among the educational environment protection zones under Article 8(1)2 of the Educational Environment Protection Act (hereinafter “Educational Environment Act”), the Defendant issued a notice of refusal of the Plaintiff’s application pursuant to Article 9 of the Educational Environment Protection Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education Administrative Appeals, but the said administrative appeals commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on June 20, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The “school boundary line”, which is the standard for setting the scope of the Plaintiff’s alleged educational environment protection zone, shall be deemed to be the “road boundary of a space where school education is practically performed”. A part of the land is used as a golf practice range, regardless of school education, regardless of school education.

Therefore, the distance from the boundary of the space where school education is actually conducted except that part of the land to the building of this case should be calculated. In such a case, it does not constitute a relative protection zone exceeding 200 meters, and thus, the instant disposition issued on a different premise is unlawful.

B. 1) School Foundation E (hereinafter “E”)