운영정지처분 등 취소
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The Defendant’s suspension of operation on April 17, 2015 to the Plaintiff is six months.
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the circumstances of the disposition are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff asserted the disposition of the instant suspension of operation was illegal since it was not negligent in giving due attention and supervision to prevent child abuse prohibited by the Child Welfare Act. Thus, the grounds for the disposition of the instant suspension of operation are not nonexistent.
Even if not, the Plaintiff installed CCTV at the instant C Child Care Center and regularly confirmed CCTV, and made systematic efforts to prevent child abuse by infant care teachers, etc., the instant disposition of suspending operation was unlawful by abusing discretion.
B. 1) The allegation that the Defendant did not have the authority to dispose of subsidies for January and February 2015 is a subsidy granted by Seoul Metropolitan Government in relation to the official approval of Seoul Child Care Center, and the Defendant who did not have the authority to dispose of the said subsidy was unlawful since it was unlawful. 2) Since the revocation of the official approval revocation disposition was revoked, the said revocation disposition was revoked by administrative litigation, which served as the basis of the claim that the said revocation disposition was unlawful, and thus, the said disposition was revoked by administrative litigation, and thus, the said disposition on the recovery of subsidies for January and February 2015 premised on the said revocation disposition is also unlawful.
3 Even if it is assumed that the Seoul-type Child Care Center's revocation disposition is legitimate and effective, the amount of this part of the recovery disposition should be the "labor cost support - the basic infant care fee support amount" related to the official approval of the Seoul-type Child Care Center.
C. The Defendant’s claim regarding the recovery of subsidies from September 2014 was made on September 2014.