1. The Defendant’s prohibited acts and cancellation of facilities in school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone against the Plaintiff on November 20, 2013.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 6, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for prohibited acts and cancellation of facilities in school environmental sanitation and cleanup zones to operate accommodation business on the 2 to 4th floor by enlarging and rebuilding the instant building, which is the owner of the 1st underground and the 3nd ground in B (hereinafter “instant building”).

(hereinafter “instant application”). (b)

On November 20, 2013, after deliberation by the School Environmental Sanitation and Cleanup Committee, the Defendant rendered a disposition of denying the instant application on the ground that “The instant building is located in the relative Cleanup Zone of nearby C Kindergartens, the risk of students’ exposure to harmful environment is reduced, and the applicant should create a pleasant educational environment around the school.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On February 7, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the administrative appeals commission of Chungcheongnam-do Office of Education. However, on April 1, 2014, the Plaintiff was dismissed.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2, Eul No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The location C kindergarten outside the relative Cleanup Zone is located in the Dsung Party as a kindergarten annexed to the Dsung Party, and the Defendant deemed Dsung’s door as the boundary line of the C kindergarten and established and publicly announced the relative Cleanup Zone. However, the school boundary line, which serves as the basis for the relative Cleanup Zone, should be based on the space where school education is practically conducted. Accordingly, C kindergarten’s boundary line is a C kindergarten building rather than Dsung party settlement, and the instant building is located in a place less than 201.2 meters away from C kindergarten building, and does not exist within the relative Cleanup Zone. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful. Thus, even if the instant building exists in the relative Cleanup Zone of C, even if the instant building is located in the relative Cleanup Zone of C, the instant building is the C kindergarten.