1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The building of the third floor above the 3th floor above the Daegu Dong-gu (hereinafter “instant building”) is located within 256 meters in a straight line from the entrance of the C High School (current P High School; hereinafter “instant school”) and within 145 meters in a straight line from the boundary line, and constitutes a relative cleanup zone in the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone.

B. On May 7, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for prohibited acts and cancellation of facilities within the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone (hereinafter “instant application”) to operate 150 square meters of 3 stories of the instant building, among 252.25 square meters of 3 stories of the instant building.

C. On May 20, 2014, the School Environmental Sanitation and Cleanup Committee of the Daegu District Office of Education held a meeting on the agenda of the instant application and deliberated on the instant application, and rejected the instant application as a disposition prohibiting all members present.

Accordingly, on June 2, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the purport that “The application for prohibited acts and cancellation of facilities within the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone shall be rejected after deliberation by the school environmental sanitation and cleanup committee pursuant to the proviso of Article 6(1) of the School Health Act” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① is a place where the instant building is located frequently, and there is a entertainment bar and lodging establishment permitted for the reason that it is outside 200 meters from the boundary line of the instant school, and there is no practical benefit to prohibit the instant business on the ground that it is within 200 meters from the boundary line of the instant school. ② Since the instant school is operating a entertainment business within 200 meters from the boundary line of the instant school, “E” and “F” are operating a entertainment business, “G”, “H”, and “I”, the prohibition of the Plaintiff’s business is against equity, and ③ the students of the instant school pass along the front road of the instant building.