2.B

[Defendant-Appellant]

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

On July 5, 2012, the Defendant’s order of return of KRW 1,145,00 of the subsidy granted to the Plaintiffs, disposition of imposition of KRW 2,100,000 of the penalty surcharge, and disposition of revocation of evaluation certification are revoked, respectively (the first instance court accepted the claim of revocation of evaluation certification, but appealed against this claim, and the Defendant filed an appeal, and this part was excluded from the scope of the trial at the trial at the time).

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiffs: The part against the plaintiffs falling under the part of the judgment of the court of first instance that ordered revocation shall be revoked. The imposition disposition of KRW 397,500 among the part of the order to return KRW 1,145,000 against the plaintiffs on July 5, 2012 and the penalty surcharge of KRW 2,10,000 shall be revoked.

B. Defendant: (a) Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the Defendant ordering the revocation of the part exceeding KRW 397,500 out of the order of return of KRW 1,145,000, which the Defendant issued to the Plaintiffs on July 5, 2012, shall be revoked; and (b) the Plaintiffs’ claim corresponding to the revocation part shall be dismissed, respectively.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) adding the phrase “(2)” at the end of 5th 20th 20th son of the first instance judgment; and (b) except adding the judgment as to the matters alleged in the trial by the Plaintiffs to the pertinent part, it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning for the first instance judgment; and (c) thus, it cited it as a substitute pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

Even if the Defendant’s act of receiving the instant subsidy was caused by “the mistake or minor negligence,” the Plaintiffs received the subsidy by deeming the Plaintiff’s act differently from the fact twice during the two-month period, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s act constitutes a child care center that did not receive a refund order under Article 40 subparag. 5 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 11627, Jan. 23, 2013; hereinafter “former Infant Care Act”) upon delegation under Article 40 subparag. 5 of the former Infant Care Act (amended by Ordinance No. 154, Aug. 17, 2012; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule of the Infant Care Act”).

A. The plaintiffs' assertion is that the amount of differential infant care fees under Article 34 of the former Infant Care Act that the plaintiffs received is paid to the plaintiffs by paying infant care fees with the child care card in order for the guardians of the relevant infants to pay infant care fees with the right to use infant care services supported by the government pursuant to Article 34-3 of the former Infant Care Act. Therefore, differential infant care fees are not "subsidies" under Article 40 (3) and Article 45 (1) 1 of the former Infant Care Act, and thus, the first and second dispositions are illegal.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form 2 is referred to as the "Additional Acts and subordinate statutes".

C. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, the "subsidies" under Articles 40 (3) and 45 (1) 1 of the former Infant Care Act shall be deemed to include not only the provisions of Article 36 of the former Infant Care Act but also the expenses borne by the State, etc. under Article 34. Therefore, the defendant's application of Articles 40 (3), 45 (1) 1 and 45-2 (1) of the former Infant Care Act to this case's subsidy payment act is legitimate. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

1) The Plaintiffs’ differential infant care fees paid to D and E are infant care expenses for low-income households prescribed by Article 34 of the former Infant Care Act. If the parents pay infant care fees using the Love Card as the form of the right to use infant care services, the government’s child care fees are paid to childcare centers as well as the subsidies prescribed in Article 36 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Infant Care Act (Article 35-3(3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Infant Care Act), and the purpose and purpose thereof, and the method of support are similar to those subsidized pursuant to Article 36 of the former Infant Care Act.

2) Although the payment of childcare fees is mediating the use of the Love Card, it is merely merely a condition for the payment of childcare fees, and still has the substance of subsidies given by the State or the local government to childcare facilities, and it cannot be deemed that the parents of infants and children have re-paid the payment of childcare fees to childcare facilities.

3) Article 45(1)1 of the former Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 8563, Jul. 27, 2007) stipulated the subject of the disposition as “the person who received the subsidy under Article 36,” and was amended on July 27, 2007, the above phrase was deleted.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and all appeals filed by the plaintiffs and the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Han Gyeong-Gyeong

Park Won-won

/Gu Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 11627, Jan. 23, 2013)

Article 34 (Bearing of Expenses)

(1) The State or local governments shall determine recipients and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare under the National Basic Living Security Act.

of a household with a certain income or less shall bear all or part of the expenses incurred in care for children, etc.

section 3.

(2) Expenses incurred in infant care under paragraph (1) shall be differentiated considering the income level of households, residential areas, etc.

(2) the Corporation.

Article 34-3 (Right to Use Infant Care Services)

(1) The State and local governments shall provide infant care services to subsidize expenses referred to in Articles 34, 34-2 and 35.

(3) Matters necessary for the provision of, procedures for use of, and other relevant matters shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare.

The State or local governments shall subsidize all or some of the expenses incurred in infant care services, such as the establishment of child-care centers under Article 10, personnel expenses of infant-care teachers (including substitute teachers), expenses for extra infant-care, etc., the establishment and operation of the regional infant-care information center, the promotion of the welfare of infant-care teachers and staff, and the provision of vulnerable infant-care, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 40 (Order to Refund Expenses and Subsidies)

In any of the following cases, the State or a local government may order the establisher and operator of a child-care center, the head of the child-care information center, the person entrusted with continuing education, etc. to return all or part of the expenses and subsidies already paid:

3. Where he/she has received subsidies by fraud or other improper means;

5. The causes as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, which are subsidized by mistake or minor negligence.

in the case of

Article 35-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the former Infant Care Act (Amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 154, Aug. 17, 2012) (Application for and issuance of a coupon for nursing services)

(3) The State and local governments shall ensure that protectors of infants use coupons for nursing services pursuant to paragraph (2).

e. Payment of expenses equivalent to the amount of such use shall be made to the relevant child care center. Article 35-9 (Where a subsidy is granted due to an error or minor negligence)

"A ground specified by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare" in subparagraph 5 of Article 40 of the Act means any of the following cases:

1. Child care centers which have failed to receive an order to return subsidies under subparagraph 5 of Article 40 of the Act for the last three years;

Only one infant (number of infants in the same household shall be deemed one infant) shall be present only once the number of days of appearance.

Where a subsidy is granted by falsely reporting the fact;

2. Child care centers which have failed to receive an order to return subsidies under subparagraph 5 of Article 40 of the Act for the last three years;

Subsidies granted by falsely reporting the number of days of attendance of young children is small, and the subsidies are granted.

Within 14 days from the date of receipt of the gold, the Governor of a Special Self-Governing Province or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu

(e)the end of the notification;