어린이집 보조금반환등 취소 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is the representative and the president of the “C Child Care Center” (hereinafter “instant Child Care Center”).
B. On May 19, 2017, the Defendant applied Article 40 subparag. 3, Article 45(1)1, and Article 46 subparag. 4 of the Infant Care Act to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant was granted KRW 3,090,00 (hereinafter “instant subsidy”) by deeming the working hours from October 19, 2016 to February 2, 2017 and the working hours from childcare teachers E-B-E on a false basis, and on the ground that he/she was granted KRW 3,09,00 in total working environment improvement expenses, treatment improvement expenses, and additional subsidies for treatment improvement expenses, etc. (hereinafter “instant subsidy”) by applying Article 40 subparag. 3, 45(1)1, and Article 46 subparag. 4 of the Infant Care Act to the said order to return KRW 3,090,000, the imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 9,540,000 in lieu of six months of the suspension of operation of a childcare center, the qualification suspension period from June 1317.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”), which is subject to the order of return of subsidies, the imposition of penalty surcharges, and the disposition of suspension of qualification for the president whose period of time has been changed, [based on recognition] of absence of dispute, evidence Nos. 4-1 through 4-3
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is legitimate in light of the grounds for disposition and relevant statutes.
As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition should be revoked for the following reasons.
1) Infant care teacher D and E, as a teacher for childcare, worked for 8:00 to 8:30 hours prior to the regular working hours of the instant child care center, and worked for 16:00 to 16:30 hours prior to the instant child care center and worked for 8 hours a day. As such, the instant subsidy provision conditions were satisfied.
Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that D and E did not work for eight hours a day is unlawful.
(b) related.