2. The Defendant’s disposition of replacing the Plaintiff on January 19, 2015 shall be revoked.

A. On January 6, 2014, the Defendant issued an improvement order (the first place) pursuant to Article 40 of the Social Welfare Services Act and Article 26-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act to the Plaintiff, who is the head of the facility of “C (the facility of this case is not a legal entity, and is not a legal entity; hereinafter “instant facility”), which is a welfare facility for persons with disabilities (the facility of this case), located in the Namyang-si city, as the ground for disposition.

B. On January 19, 2015, the Defendant, the head of the instant facility, issued a disposition to replace the head of the facility (hereinafter “instant disposition”) (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 40 of the Social Welfare Services Act and Article 26-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, by taking into account the following: (a) the Plaintiff, who is the head of the instant facility, required the submission of materials from 2010 to the date of the submission of materials (hereinafter “instant disposition”), but failed to submit a record of counseling with persons with disabilities (hereinafter “instant disposition”), (b) the submission of a record of counseling with persons with disabilities (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and (c) the submission of the current status of all persons with disabilities in other facilities and personal goods not transferred (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on July 1, 2015, and the said written ruling was served on the Plaintiff on July 17, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, 23, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is welfare facilities for the disabled under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, and under Article 3(1) of the Social Welfare Services Act, the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, which is a special law than the Social Welfare Services Act, applies preferentially to the facilities of this case. Unlike each subparagraph of Article 62(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, the submission of data pertaining to an order to submit relevant documents constitutes disposal grounds.