1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the allegations emphasized or added by the plaintiffs in this court, and thus, it shall be accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Since those who own land in the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone may be specified based on the elementary school newly established due to the instant public notice including the Plaintiffs, they should be given an opportunity to submit their opinions by directly notifying them. Nevertheless, the public notice of this case, which failed to implement such procedures, is procedurally unlawful. 2) The public notice of this case is merely intended to construct pedestrian roads in a width of 3 meters between the land owned by the Plaintiffs and the quasi-residential areas where the O-regional housing association is constructed, and it does not expect the installation of a road available for vehicle traffic, and there

3) The head of the District Education Office of Chungcheongbuk-do Office of Education announced a proposed school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone establishment without the determination of an urban management plan under Article 30 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act on August 13, 2015, and it is null and void as a matter of course. Accordingly, the instant public announcement is also unlawful. (B) As cited earlier, the Plaintiffs are not the direct counter-party to the instant public announcement. (3) Furthermore, as cited earlier, the Plaintiffs’ legal doctrine cited by the Plaintiffs, namely, “parties” who are given an opportunity to present their opinions when imposing obligations or restricting rights and interests, refers to “the direct counter-party to the administrative agency’s disposition.”

However, a disposition imposing an obligation on many unspecified persons or restricting their rights and interests by means of “public notice” cannot identify the other party who is given an opportunity to present his/her opinions by nature, and thus, such a disposition may also be taken.