The defendant shall be from November 1, 2020, out of KRW 70 million from the plaintiff.

A. On February 12, 2018, the Plaintiff, as the council of occupants’ representatives of A apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”), leased the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant as KRW 70 million until March 31, 2021, the deposit amount of KRW 70 million, monthly rent of KRW 1648,845 (including additional tax, and the last day of each month of the payment date).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The said lease agreement provides that “Where the Defendant was subject to a judgment or administrative disposition in violation of the statutes related to the operation of a child-care center,” it constitutes grounds for termination of the agreement.

B. On July 2018, the Defendant: (a) registered in the system as if the five (5) members of the fireworks leafs of the instant childcare center were not placed in the childcare center due to the retirement of the teacher in charge of the instant childcare center; and (b) received subsidies of KRW 805,00 for five (5) members of the instant childcare center (i.e., basic childcare fees per head 161,000 x 5).

C. The head of the branch office of Cheongsung-si:

B. On December 18, 2018 based on the Infant Care Act, deeming the act of paragraph (1) as the act of receiving subsidies by fraud or other improper means, the Defendant issued an order to return subsidies of KRW 805,000,000, a penalty surcharge of KRW 3.9 million in lieu of a month of suspension of operation, and issued a disposition to suspend the Defendant for one-month suspension of qualification.

Meanwhile, the defendant

B. On the charge of the violation of the Infant Care Act [the purport of receiving subsidies in an unlawful manner (Article 54(2)1 of the Infant Care Act: Article 54(2) of the Infant Care Act], a judgment of suspending the sentence of a fine of KRW 500,000 (U.S. District Court Decision 2019 High Court Decision 288) was rendered on the charge of

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the fact inquiry of the head of the branch office of the court of the first instance to the head of the branch office of the court of the first instance on Aug. 12, 2019, the purport before oral argument

2. The defendant's judgment on the main safety defense is that the council of occupants' representatives of multi-family housing conducts the procedural acts of the non-corporate company as non-corporate company.