어린이집시설폐쇄처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From November 30, 2002, the Plaintiff is operating childcare facilities under the name of “C Child Care Center” (hereinafter “instant child care centers”) in Ansan-si, Dong-si.
B. Infant care teachers D of the instant child care center habitually abused children, such as the head of the child aged between 3 and 5 and the 195 years of age, from July 8, 2016 to September 7, 2016.
C. Accordingly, on December 9, 2016, D was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for committing an offense in violation of Article 17 subparag. 3 of the Child Welfare Act in the Daegu District Court Branch (2016dan727), and the Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine of 15 million won in the same court on the same day as D’s crime of neglecting to exercise due care and supervision for preventing such offense. The above judgment became final and conclusive on April 28, 2017 with dismissal of appeal (Seoul District Court 2016No5694).
Upon the conclusion of the judgment in the above case, on July 21, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to close the child-care center facilities (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 45(1)4 of the Infant Care Act on the ground that there was child abuse in the instant child-care center under Article 3(7) of the Child Welfare Act.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff exercised considerable care and supervision to prevent child abuse of infant care teachers D, and the instant disposition does not exist. 2) The Plaintiff faithfully operated the instant child care center for 13 years, provided high quality child care, and received high-quality child care certification. The Plaintiff was unaware of child abuse of infant care D at all, and the parents of victimized children did not want the Plaintiff’s punishment and the closure of the instant child care center, and the victimized children did not want to have the child care center closed.