2...

A. The Plaintiff is operating a private day care facility (hereinafter “instant day care center”) under the trade name, “C day care center” in Gangnam-gu Seoul.

B. The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government: (a) while operating the instant childcare center, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 48,00,000 to the Plaintiff’s personal account from January 2012 to May 2013; (b) used subsidies using KRW 16,003,401 out of the subsidies for personal use; (c) as for 115 cases of extended childcare hours from March 201 to May 2013, 201, the Plaintiff received KRW 5,080,230 of the subsidies by filing a false report and received KRW 60 hours from the Plaintiff for 60 hours a month to May 2013; (d) the former Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 11858, Jun. 4, 2013; (e) the Enforcement Decree, the Enforcement Decree, the Enforcement Rule, the Enforcement Rule, the Enforcement Rule, the “Enforcement Rule”; and (d) the Plaintiff either received subsidies or 1401 through unlawful means under Article 45(1) and 16 subparag.

C. On November 29, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the official approval of the Seoul Child Care Center (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff was subject to the closure of child care center facilities and suspension of the president’s qualification as above by the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission to revoke the instant disposition, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s above claim on April 21, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including all paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The operation fund of the child-care center of this case.