위탁취소처분 취소 등
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant’s disbursement is among the dispositions listed in the [Attachment 1] No. 1, which the Plaintiff against the Plaintiff on March 15, 2016.
Although the plaintiff filed a lawsuit identical to the original purport of the claim, the court of first instance revoked each of the dispositions listed in the separate sheet 1 Nos. 1, 2, 11, 12, and 14 and each of the disposition revoking the entrustment of a child care center B and dismissed each of the remaining claims of the plaintiff. While the defendant filed an appeal as to each of the above revocation parts, the defendant did not file an appeal as to each of the above dismissal parts, and thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to each of the dispositions listed in the separate sheet No. 1 No. 1, 2, 11, 12, and 14 (hereinafter “each of the dispositions of this case”) and on April 15, 2016 against the plaintiff.
2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: (a) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the part on the grounds of “1. Giving rise to the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance”; and (b) the same is cited under Article 8(2
3. The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in attached Form 2;
4. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate
A. Whether an improvement order based on the Social Welfare Services Act is possible or this part of the court's explanation is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 3th to 4th 11th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e
B. The Defendant asserted that the expense for special activities is improper (attached Form 1 No. 1 No. 1) (1). The Defendant paid the tuition fees in January, 201 without evidentiary materials (e.g., the number of attendance time and time of external instructors) while executing the expense for special activities (in English and music) on January 201. In the case of special activities (arts), it cannot be deemed that the special instructor and the contract period for special art activities were terminated from March 22, 2010 to December 31, 201, and thus, the Defendant paid the tuition fees, notwithstanding the fact that the contract relationship was maintained, on the ground that the Plaintiff paid the tuition fees, evidence of disbursement (e.g., the number of attendance time) and the amount of KRW 200,000,000