2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a person who establishes and operates a Suwon-si B Apartment-gu, Suwon-si, and C Child Care Center (hereinafter “instant Child Care Center”) which is a home childcare center in 4008 Dong 101.

B. From January 2014 to September 2015, the Plaintiff received subsidies of KRW 19,624,380 (hereinafter “instant subsidies”) in the aggregate of KRW 16,919,380 for basic childcare care teachers, and KRW 2,705,00 for the expenses for the concurrent office of the head and the improvement of treatment of the head of the kindergarten (hereinafter “instant subsidies”).

C. Meanwhile, from January 2014 to September 2015, the Plaintiff served as a person in charge of management at D medical care institutions and E Welfare Centers as follows:

From August 1, 2014 to May 2, 2015, 2015, the person in charge of the management of the E Welfare Center from January 1, 2013 to July 31, 2014 (the part-time caregiver) shall be the person in charge of the management of the E Welfare Center from May 2, 2015 to September 7, 2015.

D. On January 29, 2015, the Defendant issued an order to return subsidies of KRW 19,624,380 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the Plaintiff’s duty of transfer and prohibition of concurrent holding of office by filing a false report on this issue and received subsidies.

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal, but the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the appeal on April 12, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 10, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion was registered as the representative of another social welfare facility, the above social welfare facility does not look at the beneficiary’s hospitalization.