logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.04.08 2014구합1774
학교환경위생정화구역 내 금지행위 처분 취소
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. The building of the third floor above the Daegu Dong-gu B (hereinafter “instant building”) is a relative cleanup zone among school environmental sanitation and cleanup zones located within 256 meters in a straight line from the entrance of the C High School (hereinafter “instant school”) and 145 meters in a straight line from the boundary line.

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 held a meeting to deliberate on the instant case’s agenda, and rejected this case’s application by the disposition of prohibition by 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”).

【Reasons for Recognition】 Evidence Nos. 2, 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) D where the instant building is located is frequently accessible to students; (b) dans and accommodation establishments permitted on the ground that it is outside 200 meters from the boundary line of the instant school; (c) there is no practical benefit to prohibit the instant business on the ground that it is located within 200 meters from the boundary line of the instant school; (d) ② Public entertainment establishments with the trade name of “E” and “F” are running business within 200 meters from the boundary line of the instant school; (c) students of the instant school are running a lodging establishment of “G”, “H”, and “I”; and (d) students of the instant school are running as dormitories around the instant building; and (e) the instant school operated as a school around 2015.

arrow