2. On September 26, 2016, the Defendant’s revocation of the qualification for the president of the Child Care Center against the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff as a party shall be the president of the "D Child Care Center" (hereinafter referred to as the "Child Care Center of this case") located in the Soyang-gu, Busan Metropolitan City C Apartment-gu, which is operated by B.

The Plaintiff and B, such as the disposition of suspending the principal’s qualification against the Plaintiff, etc., were paid KRW 690,000 in total by entering the child care integration information system into the fact that the said infant was present for at least 11 days a month, even though the infant E and F registered in the child care center of this case was not present for at least 11 days from October 201 to December 12 of the same year.

On January 11, 2013, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 3 million on the Plaintiff and B in lieu of one month of suspension of operation pursuant to Articles 45(1)1 and 45-2 of the former Infant Care Act (Amended by Act No. 11003, Aug. 4, 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s act of receiving the said basic infant care fees constitutes “cases of receiving subsidies by fraud or other improper means” (hereinafter “instant penalty disposition”), and on the Plaintiff, one month of suspension of the Plaintiff’s qualification (from February 1, 2013 to February 28, 201) pursuant to Article 46 subparag. 4 of the former Infant Care Act.

(2) On January 28, 2013, the Plaintiff and B filed an administrative appeal against each of the above dispositions, and the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a decision to suspend the execution of each of the above dispositions (hereinafter “decision to suspend the execution of the administrative appeal of this case”) pursuant to Article 30(2) of the Administrative Appeals Act on February 4, 2013, and on May 2, 2013, the said decision to dismiss the administrative appeal claim of this case (hereinafter “decision to suspend the execution of the administrative appeal of this case”).

Since July 18, 2013, the defendant issued a disposition to suspend the principal of this case against the plaintiff from August 5, 2013 to the same year.

9. In April 1, 200, the change was made (hereinafter “instant change”).

An appeal shall be filed, etc.