1. In light of the contents of Articles 34, 34-2, 34-3, 35, and 36 of the former Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 11003, Aug. 4, 201; hereinafter “Act”), and legislative details, legislative intent, etc., the State or local governments should be deemed to bear or subsidize expenses incurred in infant care or child-care free education to their protectors pursuant to Article 35 of the Act and to subsidize expenses to the operators of child-care centers pursuant to Article 36 of the Act.

In addition, since the State or a local government issued a infant care service voucher to the infant’s guardian pursuant to Article 34-3(1) and (3) of the Act and Article 35-3(2) and (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act, it constitutes the payment of the amount equivalent to the child care fees paid to the infant’s guardian by presenting the above usage voucher to the child care center, it constitutes the payment of the expenses required for the child care to the infant’s guardian under Article 34(1) of the Act. Thus, it is deemed that the infant’s guardian is not the other party who actually received the expenses required for the child care

Therefore, even if the guardian of a child who uses a child care center has used the child care service voucher by fraud or other improper means in the course of paying the child care fees, barring any special circumstance, the child care center operator who has received the payment of the child care fees shall not be deemed to have received the subsidy by fraud or other improper means under Article 40 subparagraph 3 of the Act and shall not be ordered to return the amount.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, the plaintiff is operating a child care center under the name of "C child care center" in Jeju City B, and D (E) registered with the child care center of this case as a multicultural family child.