1. The Defendant’s order to return subsidies issued on December 21, 2017, and the Plaintiff’s amendment of the purport of the claim on July 19, 2018.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was authorized by the Defendant on August 26, 201, and operated C childcare centers, which are child care centers under the Infant Care Act, in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building B and A 102, and is concurrently holding the position of the director of C childcare centers under Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Infant Care Act.

B. On December 21, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff, who is the operator of C childcare centers, of the subsidy for expenses for infant care helpers labor (hereinafter referred to as “child care helpers”), 2,171,610 won for expenses for infant care helpers (hereinafter referred to as “child care helpers”), on the ground that “The Seoul City Project Plan for the Improvement of Treatment of Infant Care Teachers 2017 in Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “the instant 2017 Project Plan”) and the Seoul 2017 Child Care Project Guidance (hereinafter referred to as “the instant 2017 Infant Care Project Guidance”), although the head of C childcare centers could not employ the child helpers as care helpers, the Plaintiff, who is the head of C childcare centers, was employed as children helpers and other employees and received the aforementioned subsidy by unfairly filing an application from May 2017 to August 14, 2018.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant order of return of subsidies”) c.

On July 19, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to suspend the operation of C Child Care Centers for one year (from August 1, 2018 to July 31, 2019) under Article 45(1)2 of the Infant Care Act to the Plaintiff, who is the operator of C Child Care Center, on the ground that “Notwithstanding the instant order to return subsidies, the Defendant did not return it until February 14, 2018, which is the time limit for return.”

(2) Each of the instant dispositions, including the following facts: (a) Disposition to suspend operation as above; (b) “Disposition to suspend operation of the instant case”; and (c) “Disposition to Refund the Subsidies” and “each of the instant dispositions,” / [based on recognition] of absence of dispute; (d) entry of evidence Nos. 5 and 8; and (e)

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

(a)a party’s assertion 1.