A. From October 8, 2010, the Plaintiff is the representative and the president of the C Child Care Center (hereinafter “C Child Care Center”) located in the management Dong in Pyeongtaek-si apartment complex B.

B. The Defendant: (a) on January 2, 2013, granted subsidies under Article 40 of the former Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 11858, Jun. 4, 2013; hereinafter the same) to the Plaintiff on the ground that: (b) the Defendant resided in the Changwon from March 2012 to May 201; (c) even if the child D, who was registered in the instant childcare center, did not wish to do so; and (d) received unjustly the basic childcare fees of D; (b) on the ground that the subsidies were granted to the Plaintiff; (d) March 2, 2012; (d) March 2, 2012; and (e) March 2, 2012; and (e) March 1, 740,000; and (e) March 1, 750,000 child care center’s treatment allowance and special service allowance; and (e) suspension of qualifications for one-third month and 31.31.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant dispositions” in combination with the above dispositions.

The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on June 12, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3 (including additional numbers), Eul's 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion D continued to attend the child-care center of this case from March 2012 to May 2012, each of the dispositions of this case on the premise that the Plaintiff received subsidies by fraud or other improper means is unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. (1) According to Article 40 subparag. 3, Article 45(1)1, and Article 46 subparag. 4 of the former Infant Care Act, a person who establishes and operates a child care center has already received subsidies by fraud or other improper means.