1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B obtained a building permit on June 27, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant schools”) to construct the business facilities (offices) of the 15th floor underground and the 15th floor in Seoul Jongno-gu E land, which is a place located within the scope set by the relative Cleanup Zone, located within 95m from the entrance of the C Schools and D Schools (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant schools”) and 44m from the boundary line, and within the boundary set by the relative Cleanup Zone among school environmental sanitation and Cleanup Zones, and obtained approval for use on October 29, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant building”). (b)

On September 7, 2015, the Plaintiff revealed to the Defendant that “F” was scheduled to operate a tourist resort in the name of “F from the 10th to 15th floor of the instant building,” and filed an application for prohibited acts and cancellation of facilities in the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone pursuant to the proviso to Article 6(1) of the former School Health Act (amended by Act No. 13946, Feb. 3, 2016; hereinafter the same), but the Defendant rejected the said application on September 22, 2015.

C. On December 10, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the same content as that stated in the foregoing Paragraph (only the location was changed to the first floor or the fifth floor of the instant building), but the Defendant rejected the said application on December 18, 2015.

On July 18, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for prohibited acts and cancellation of facilities within the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone pursuant to the proviso of Article 6(1) of the former School Health Act, by disclosing that the Defendant would operate a tourist host zone in the name of “F” on the first or fifth floor of the instant building, but the Defendant rejected the said application with the purport that it is difficult to recognize that the instant building does not adversely affect learning and school health and sanitation of each of the instant schools on August 4, 2016.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] The entry in Gap’s 3, 4, and Eul’s 1, 2, and 5(including additional numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is out of the school route of each of the instant students.