A. From December 2008, the Plaintiff operated the said childcare center as the president of the C Child Care Center located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B apartment 1301 Dong 103 (hereinafter “instant child care center”).

B. The Plaintiff was paid KRW 957,500, total childcare fees paid over three occasions on November 2009 and January 12, 2010 by the father of D, who had been a financial resource of the instant childcare center, stayed abroad from November 8, 2009 to February 3, 2010, as childcare fees for the said period.

C. On February 27, 2012, the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “head of Songpa-gu”) ordered the Plaintiff to refund KRW 957,500 of the subsidies paid pursuant to Article 40 subparag. 3 of the former Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 11627, Jan. 23, 2013; hereinafter “former Act”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s payment of childcare fees in the instant case constitutes “cases of receiving subsidies by false or other unjust means” (hereinafter “the head of Songpa-gu”) and ordered the Plaintiff to correct the operation of the childcare center (hereinafter “the order to return existing subsidies”) pursuant to Article 44 of the former Act.

(hereinafter “instant corrective order”). D.

The instant child care center was certified as a child care center by the Minister of Health and Welfare. On March 30, 2012, the Minister of Health and Welfare rendered a decision to revoke the evaluation certification of the child care center for the instant child care center pursuant to Article 30 (5) of the former Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was ordered to return the previous subsidy, and then send the relevant document to the head of Songpa-gu and sent it to the Plaintiff for separate notification. The head of Songpa-gu notified the Plaintiff on April 2, 2012 that the evaluation certification of the

The cancellation disposition of the instant evaluation certification is called “the revocation disposition.”