In a case where Gap applied for the exclusion of prohibited acts and facilities within an educational environment protection zone to operate a billiard on the third floor of a building located in an educational environment protection zone near a subway, but the head of the district office of education rejected such an application, the case holding that the above disposition is unlawful on the ground that Gap's head of the party to be operated constitutes "facilities deemed not to adversely affect learning and educational environment" as provided in the proviso of Article 9 of the Educational Environment Protection Act.

In a case where Gap filed an application with the head of the competent district office of education to exclude prohibited acts and facilities within an educational environment protection zone from the third floor of a building located in an educational environment protection zone near a subway, but the head of the district office of education rejected such application, the case holding that since three principals of the three schools, such as middle and high schools in the vicinity of the above building, among four schools, such as the fact that the building was separated from the 2 schools to the 8th line, and the entrance and the inside of the 3th floor of the building are not visible in the above 4 schools, the Gu was adopted as a regular line of the national sports competition and the entrance of the 18 years old and under the 18 years old are allowed to be operated in the 19th floor, and that the 5th floor of the above 5th floor facility, which is a sports facility, is designated as a non-smoking area pursuant to Article 9 (4) 20 of the National Health Promotion Act, and thus, the above proviso of the Act on Educational Environment Protection and Educational Environment of the Party Act is unlawful.

Article 8 (1) 2 and Article 9 of the Educational Environment Protection Act, Article 9 (4) 20 of the National Health Promotion Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Suwon, Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Seog District Office of Education

December 15, 2017

1. On June 28, 2017, the Defendant’s rejection disposition against the Plaintiff regarding prohibited acts and exclusion of facilities in educational environment protection zones is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the prohibition of prohibited acts and exclusion of facilities within an educational environment protection zone (hereinafter “instant application”) to operate a billiard business on the third floor of the 1st floor and the 6th floor building (hereinafter “instant building”) located in the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address omitted) located in the education environment protection zone as a road adjacent to the subway ○○○ Station (No. 2 line).

B. On June 28, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the refusal of the instant application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the party head seeking to operate the Plaintiff is deemed to have a bad influence on learning and educational environment pursuant to the proviso to Article 9 of the Educational Environment Protection Act (hereinafter “Educational Environment Act”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

In full view of the following facts or circumstances, the party head intended for the Plaintiff’s operation constitutes “a facility deemed not to adversely affect learning and educational environment” as provided in the proviso of Article 9 of the Educational Environment Act, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful, inasmuch as it constitutes “a facility deemed not to adversely affect learning and educational environment” under the proviso of Article 9 of the same Act.

① The instant building is located 182 meters from the entrance of △△ Middle School and △△ High School in a straight line, 182 meters from the entrance, 226 meters from the entrance, 110 meters from the boundary, and 63 meters from the entrance, and 48 meters from the boundary. Of 386 students from △△ Middle School, 132 among 386 students from 132, 190 among 694 students from 190, 18 among 694 students from ○○ middle school and 685 students from △△△△△△△ High School, 20 students from ○○ middle school are used as the front of the instant building. However, only the head of ○ middle school in the above 4 schools moved back to 8 lanes in the relevant facilities, but the head of △△ High School was located immediately in the front of the instant crosswalk, and it does not interfere with the educational environment of the relevant school and the head of △△ High School.

② The instant building is divided into the ○ Middle School, ○○○○○ School, and the 8nd line road, and the high-rise apartment is being constructed between △△ Middle School, △△ High School, and the instant building. The instant building does not appear at △△ High School, △△ High School, and the entrance and interior of the third floor of the instant building does not appear at △△ Middle School, △△△ High School, △△ High School, ○○ Middle School, and ○○○

③ The Gu party branch is recognized as a sound sports by changing social perceptions about the party branch, such as being adopted as a regular national sports event and allowing persons under the age of 18 to enter the party branch (see Constitutional Court en banc Order 92Hun-Ma80, May 13, 1993).

④ Although non-educational circumstances, such as smoking or gambling, may occur in the billiard, this is not due to the inherent nature of the Gu, but due to the inherent nature of the Gu, Article 9(4)20 of the National Health Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 14318, Dec. 2, 2016) provides that the billiard facility, which is a sports facility, was designated as a non-smoking area from December 3, 2017 (Article 1 of the Addenda of the Act No. 14318, Dec. 2, 2016); however, the possibility of non-educational circumstances through smoking in the billiard area has decreased (Article 1 of the Addenda of the Act).

⑤ Dance institutes and accommodation businesses are governed by the proviso to Article 9 of the Educational Environment Act (Article 21 of the Educational Environment Act in cases of dance institutes and billiard halls, Article 21 of the same Act in cases of dance institutes and billiard halls, Article 27 of the same Act in cases of dance institutes, and Article 27 of the same Act in cases of the fifth floor of the instant building, and in cases of the adjoining areas of the instant building

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable and acceptable.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Kim Jong-tae (Presiding Judge)