1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

According to the statement of the disposition of this case (No. 1) on the 6th floor of the original city B in the original city, the Plaintiff was operating the “CMoel” on the 6th floor of the 6th floor above the original city, and according to the statement of the disposition of this case (No. 1), the Plaintiff stated that the application for prohibited acts and cancellation of facilities in the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone was three parcels of land, including D, E, and G, as the prospective site for the facilities in the initial school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone, but the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff would construct the unmanned hotel on the land D, E, and only the above D and E land as the site for the building to be extended even in the 1 (extension drawings

(hereinafter “instant site”) is the owner of the instant site.

The Plaintiff, by constructing a new building on the instant site, revealed that it was a plan to operate the lodging business (the name of the telecom and the name of the telecom) and applied for prohibited acts and cancellation of facilities within the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone pursuant to the proviso of Article 6(1) and Article 6(1)13 of the former School Health Act (amended by Act No. 13946, Feb. 3, 2016; hereinafter the same).

Since 335 meters away from the entrance and 186 meters away from the boundary line of the site, the building and the entrance are displayed at the school, and approximately 13% of the whole school students passed through a sub-school and a private teaching institute, and thus, the FF Middle School Steering Committee convened an urgent ad hoc meeting on July 11, 2016 and resolved to oppose the application for extension of the unmanned tele-culing in the school cleanup zone on the following grounds.

On July 19, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result that the said application would be rejected.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, and the Gangwon-do Educational Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on December 5, 2016.

【Ground for recognition” has no dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1, 3, and 7 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the whole purport of pleading shall be as shown in the attached Form of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.