원장자격정지처분 취소청구의 소
1. The Defendant’s revocation of the disposition of suspending the president’s qualification for one month against the Plaintiff on October 24, 2013.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is the representative and the president who operates the C Child-Care Center (hereinafter “Child-Care Center in this case”) located in Guang-si B.
B. On October 24, 2010, an infant D (E) who was attending the instant childcare center, left Korea on December 25, 2010 and entered the Republic of Korea on December 25, 2010.
C. D’s division visited the Child Care Center of this case during the above overseas stay period of D, and paid D’s child care fees for November and December of 2010 with the Love Card.
The Defendant issued a disposition suspending the qualification of the president on October 24, 2013 pursuant to Article 46 subparagraph 4 of the former Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 11858, Jun. 4, 2013; hereinafter “Child Care Act”) to suspend the receipt of government childcare subsidies for November 11, 2010, on the ground that the Plaintiff received the government childcare subsidies for December 201, in violation of the Section Settlement System (if the number of days of attendance is at least 11 days by dividing three sections by the number of days of attendance of an infant using a childcare center, 50% if the number of days of attendance is at least 6-10 days, and 25% if the number of days of attendance is between 1-1 and 5 days, on the ground that the Plaintiff was unable to attend the childcare center in this case on November 24, 2013.
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that childcare fees received from the Defendant in November and December 2010 for infant D, which was paid by the Plaintiff in relation to the instant childcare center, cannot be deemed a “subsidies” under the Infant Care Act as childcare fees provided by the State to the guardian pursuant to Article 34(1) of the Infant Care Act. Thus, the instant disposition based on the premise that the said money is a subsidy should be revoked as an illegal disposition in violation of the Infant Care Act.
(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;
(c) for free infant care, subsidies, etc. of the Infant Care Act;