1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs purchased the 2,596 square meters and D large 786 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, and intended to establish a liquefied petroleum gas filling station (hereinafter “instant filling station”) on each of the instant lands and the land E, and each of the said lands is located within the relative Cleanup Zone under the School Health Act and subordinate statutes.

B. On December 8, 2014, the Plaintiffs obtained permission related to the establishment of the instant charging station, and filed an application for the cancellation of prohibited acts and facilities in the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone (hereinafter “the first application”). However, on December 23, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision on “Prohibition” on the ground that it is deemed that there are factors detrimental to students’ learning and school health and sanitation in the F High School located nearby (hereinafter “instant school”). (C) On January 29, 2015, the Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the said disposition and tried to file an appeal on January 29, 2015, by changing the storage facilities, charging facilities, etc. of the instant charging station, which were intended to be installed within 200 meters from the entrance of the instant school, and again filed an application for the cancellation of prohibited acts and facilities in the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone (hereinafter “second application”).

However, on April 7, 2015, the Defendant, like the previous school students, needs to be detrimental to the study and school health and sanitation of the students of this case.

The decision was made on the grounds that there was a seal.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs sought the revocation of the instant disposition after changing the subject of adjudication in the above administrative appeal, but the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education Administrative Appeals dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim on May 28, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6 (if there are serial numbers, each number shall be included).