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 Defendant, while operating the instant childcare center from January 2012 to May 2013, 201, transferred KRW 48,00,000 to the Plaintiff’s personal account, using KRW 16,003,40 of the subsidy for personal use. From March 2011 to May 2013, the Defendant received KRW 5,080,230 of the subsidy by filing a false report as if the Plaintiff had taken care of the child for a maximum of 60 hours a month other than the actual childcare hours, and received KRW 5,080,230 of the subsidy by receiving KRW 118,00 from the former Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 11858, Jun. 4, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the “Act”); the Enforcement Decree, the Enforcement Rule, the Enforcement Rule, etc. of the Child Care Center; and issued the subsidy to the Plaintiff by false means or unlawful means under Article 45(1)1 and 46 subparag. 14.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal to revoke the instant disposition with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, 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. Since the account of the funds for the operation of child-care centers in this case is mixed with subsidies and non-subsidies, even if the Plaintiff used the money withdrawn from the account for the operation of child-care centers for personal purposes, such subsidies cannot be deemed as useful.

(b)the extended time nursing fees are not subsidies for child-care centers;