A. From November 2010, the Plaintiff is a person who is operating a “C Child Care Center” (hereinafter “instant Child Care Center”) as a family childcare center from November 201, 201, which is a child care center of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant Child Care Center”).

B. From November 22, 2017 to November 23, 2017, the Defendant conducted occasional inspections with respect to the instant childcare center, and on January 11, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition on the ground that “Plaintiff registered D, a part-time childcare teacher from April 201 to November 201, 2017, as a seed pool teacher, with a false registration of D, a part-time childcare teacher, and illegally received subsidies of KRW 12,395,270 in total as shown in attached Table 1” as the violation of the provision that “the Plaintiff illegally received subsidies of KRW 12,395,270 in total, as described in attached Table 1” (from March 1, 2018 to February 28, 2019).

(hereinafter referred to as “each disposition of this case” in combination with each of the above dispositions. / [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The period during which the Plaintiff employed D as part-time teacher for the absence of the grounds for disposition is from August 2017 to November 2017, and from April 2017 to July 2017, the Plaintiff appointed D as a seed pool teacher for at least eight hours a day and had D work for at least eight hours a day. Moreover, since D is a person with a certificate of infant care teacher and provided infant care according to the legal standards, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff received the portion of the basic infant care fees from April 2017 to November 2017. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s disposition that the Plaintiff received basic infant care fees from the Plaintiff from the full amount of the subsidies for the teacher and the teacher’s allowance for 12,395,270 won was unlawful, each of the instant disposition that the Plaintiff did not temporarily neglect the management of the instant child care center and did not report the instant administrative misconduct during nine years.