A. From August 29, 2013, the Plaintiff is operating a “C Child Care Center” (hereinafter “instant Child Care Center”) in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Young-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant Child Care Center”).

B. On September 2, 2015, the Defendant took each of the following dispositions (hereinafter referred to as “each of the dispositions in this case”) on the grounds that: (a) the Plaintiff was unfairly subsidized the basic childcare fees of KRW 870,00 (=174,000 x 5 months x 5 months) from October 2014 to February 2015; and (b) the basic childcare fees of KRW 591,60 [69,600 + (174,000 + 174,000 + 3 months x 3 months) of the total childcare fees of KRW 1,461,60 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the dispositions in this case”) from November 2, 2014 to February 2015:

① Under Article 40 of the former Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 13321, May 18, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply), an order to return KRW 3,535,680 (hereinafter referred to as “instant order to return subsidies”) paid from October 2014 to February 2015 under Article 40 of the former Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 136,78,434, and KRW 300,000 to KRW 35,50,000 in lieu of the suspension of operation of a child care center under Articles 45 and 45-2 of the former Infant Care Act (hereinafter referred to as “instant order to return subsidies”). (2) An order to suspend qualification for the Plaintiff’s child care center under Article 45 and 45-2 of the former Infant Care Act (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition to impose penalty surcharge”), the purport of suspension of qualifications for each of the instant cases is 336,778,434,000,0000 won per day.

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion D and E have been nurtured by F, which is actually f, in the second half of the actual sea wave wave, and only when F, in the class of four-half class, G, a four-half class, only when F, performs f, or f, takes a job with a view to supporting class members, etc.