1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 5, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for prohibited acts and cancellation of facilities in the school sanitation and cleanup zone in order to operate the billiard hall (hereinafter “instant billiard hall”) on the second floor of the third floor among the buildings of the third floor that are scheduled to be newly constructed on the ground B located in the relative cleanup zone among school environmental sanitation and cleanup zones under Article 5 of the School Health Act (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On August 7, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of refusal to revoke the application for the prohibition of prohibited acts and cancellation of facilities in school environmental sanitation zones (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the grounds that students’ study and school health sanitation may adversely affect school health and sanitation (hereinafter “the Committee”) following deliberation by the school environmental sanitation and cleanup committee (hereinafter “Committee”).

C. On August 12, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition is unreasonable, and filed an administrative appeal with the Cheong-do Office of Education Administrative Appeals Commissions, Chungcheongnam-do Office of Education, however, the administrative appeals commission dismissed the appeal on October 2, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case was not presented at the time of the disposition of this case, and there are procedural defects in the disposition of this case, and the reasons that the defendant ex post facto presented in the process of the administrative appeal are also vague future hazards.

In light of the fact that the concept of the instant building is ambiguous and comprehensive, and that the Defendant was able to take the disposition of cancelling the facility by granting additional clauses, such as designating the instant building as a non-smoking building, etc., and that the changes in the social perception of the party headquarters and the private benefits restricted in comparison with the public interests that can be achieved due to the instant disposition are excessive, the instant disposition is unlawful as it is in violation of the principle of proportionality, and is in violation of the principle of proportionality.

(b).