All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary of the case and the key issue Plaintiff 1 and 11 applied for the registration of private teaching institutes teaching international standard dance by applying the type of private teaching institutes as school curriculum private teaching institutes or school curriculum private teaching institutes under the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons (hereinafter “Private Teaching Institutes Act”).

Defendant 1 through 4 (hereinafter “Defendant’s head of the District Education Office”) rejected an application for registration of a private teaching institute on the ground that the dance institute does not constitute a private teaching institute subject to registration under the Private Institutes Act.

(hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”). Defendant 5, 6, and 7 (hereinafter “Defendant head”) issued a corrective order under the Building Act to Plaintiffs 12 through 20 on the ground that the illegal alteration of the use of Class II neighborhood living facilities, etc. for amusement facilities was made to Plaintiffs 12 through 20.

(hereinafter “instant corrective order”). The lower court determined that the instant refusal disposition and corrective order were unlawful.

As to this, the Defendant’s head of the district office of education added the proviso on the proviso on the scope of dance institutes under the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (hereinafter “Rules on the proviso on the scope of dance institutes under the Enforcement Decree of the Private Institutes Act”) concerning dances belonging to the teaching process of a private teaching institute for lifelong education or vocational training to the [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Private Institutes Act amended by Presidential Decree No. 23250, Oct. 25, 2011 (hereinafter “Rules on the Scope of dance institutes under the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act”), the Defendant asserts that dance institutes should be regulated as dance institutes under the Sports Facilities Act

In addition, Defendant head of the Gu asserts that the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act clearly classifys dance institutes as amusement facilities, so unless the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act is amended, dance institutes shall be deemed amusement facilities.

The key issue of the instant case is a private teaching institute for school curriculum under the Private Institutes Act.