보조금 반환명령 취소 청구의 소
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff was the president, who was the founder and operator of the D child-care center in Ansan-si Group B and C.
B. On March 9, 2020, pursuant to Article 40 subparag. 3 of the Infant Care Act and Article 33(1) of the Subsidy Management Act, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to return the subsidy of KRW 52,935,090 (hereinafter “instant subsidy”) as the following violations (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
D. A [Grounds for Recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the subsidies of this case include KRW 13,840,00 for improvement of the working environment and KRW 13,200 for improvement of treatment, and KRW 13,200 for childcare teachers, not the Plaintiff, are obliged to return to the Plaintiff.
In addition, the part of the cost of improving the working environment and the cost of improving treatment that the infant care teacher is considered to have worked normally cannot be considered to have been paid by fraud or improper means.
3. Attached statements to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;
4. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. According to the Plaintiff’s obligation to return subsidies to the head of the health and welfare division, the “child care service guidance” in 2018 and the “school guidance in Gyeonggi-do” in 2018 of the Gyeonggi-do branch office, the expenses for improving the working environment and improving treatment for child care teachers are paid to the teachers who work for 8 hours a day in the child care center in principle and who have worked for 15 days or more a month and who have worked for 15 days or more at the child care center, and all of them are paid to the local government to subsidize expenses that the local government considers necessary for the personnel expenses for infant care teachers or the operation of the child care center. This constitutes subsidies prescribed in Article 36 of the Infant Care Act and Article 24 of the Enforcement
According to Article 40 (3) of the Infant Care Act, where an installer or operator of a child care center has received a subsidy by fraud or other improper means, the local government may order him/her to return all or part of the expenses and the subsidy already paid.