운영정지처분등
1. Each of the plaintiffs' appeals is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. Grounds for the court's explanation concerning this case is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance 2.
D. In the part of “judgment”, except for the following parts, the part pertaining to “whether a subsidy has been illegally received to three persons of “for example,” under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to deviations from and abuse of discretionary power,” which is cited in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.
[Supplementary part] (E) If a local government is to receive subsidies for three poor persons, the local government is to provide a childcare center with basic childcare fees, treatment improvement expenses, etc. on the premise that it satisfies the standards for placement of infant care teachers.
However, since the child care center of this case violates the standards for the placement of infant care teachers (three infants under the age of one per teacher) under Article 17(2) of the Infant Care Act and Article 10 [Attachment Table 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Infant Care Act by care in excess of F and E, which are not registered as "for example, adverse group" at the child care center of this case, the Plaintiffs did not meet the requirements for receiving basic infant care fees and treatment improvement expenses.
Therefore, it is legitimate to recover the full amount of the basic childcare fees and the cost of treatment improvement for the month in which the total amount of the subsidy was received by illegal means.
(3) Even in the situation where children who are much less than the prescribed number with regard to deviations and abuse of discretionary power are registered in the child care center of this case, it seems that the Plaintiffs have contributed to helping multicultural children adapt to Korean society by taking care of a large number of multicultural children.
In addition, it seems that the suspension of the operation of the child care center of this case for six months may result in the closure of the child care center of this case.
However, despite the fact that the plaintiffs were found to be in violation of the standards for the placement of infant care teachers at the time of the special inspection of June 28, 2013 in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Sep. 30, 2013.