logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.06.07 2018구합20438
교육환경보호구역 내 금지행위 및 시설 제외 신청 거부처분 취소청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 29, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for exclusion of prohibited acts and facilities within an educational environment protection zone among the educational environment protection zones under the relevant statutes, such as the Educational Environment Protection Act (hereinafter “Education Environment Act”), in order to operate a singing practice room in the Daegu-gu Underground Floor E located in the middle school, Cmiddle school, and D elementary school, and part of 373.11 square meters on the ground among the 9 floors above the ground, among the 373.1 square meters above the ground.

B. In accordance with the proviso to Article 9 of the Educational Environment Act, the Defendant issued a disposition that the Plaintiff does not accept an application for exclusion from the Plaintiff’s prohibited acts and facilities (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on November 7, 2017, following deliberation by the Educational Environment Protection Committee of Daegu-gu Seoul District Office of Education.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the Defendant that the Daegu Metropolitan Office of Education revoked the instant disposition, but the said administrative appeals commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on April 3, 2018.

Acts and subordinate statutes related to this case shall be as listed in the attached Form.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul Nos. 1 and 4 (including spot numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case is unlawful and revoked on the grounds that the disposition of this case deviates from discretion by comparing and comparing the Plaintiff’s private interest and the public interest to be achieved by the Educational Environment Act for the following reasons.

1) The scheduled place of this case is the place of sound play culture in which juveniles are allowed to enter and leave from 9 A.M. to 10 P.M., and the Plaintiff is obliged to comply with the obligations of the karaoke machine business operator, and is running singing practice room business.

arrow