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 October 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the cancellation of prohibited acts and facilities within the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone pursuant to the proviso of Article 6(1) of the School Health Act, to newly construct and operate accommodation facilities of the first and fifth floors underground in Jeju City, the scale of which is 31.7 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) located within the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone of the B Middle School (hereinafter “instant school”).

B. Accordingly, the Defendant held a school environmental sanitation and cleanup committee to deliberate on the Plaintiff’s above application, received opinions from the principal of the school of this case, and notified on October 31, 2014 that he/she does not accept the Plaintiff’s application for prohibited acts and removal of facilities (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed to the Jeju Special Self-Governing Provincial Office of Education, but the said Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on January 13, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is already running accommodation business in the name of “E” with permission for accommodation business on the ground of the Jeju-si land adjacent to the instant land (hereinafter “instant adjacent land”). The instant adjacent land is located within the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone and was deliberated upon prohibited acts and removal of facilities by the Defendant. In light of the location and shape of the instant adjacent land, there is no reason to treat the instant adjacent land differently from the instant adjacent land.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion against the principle of equity.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

(c) The superintendent of the City/Do Office of Education or the superintendent of the City/Do Office of Education under the proviso of Article 6(1) of the School Health Act.