1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 16, 1986, the Plaintiff was a social welfare foundation established for the purpose of installing and operating a child welfare facility, and operated a child protection and treatment facility C (hereinafter “instant facility”).

B. On July 3, 2013 to December 28, 2012, three originals living in the instant facility (hereinafter “victims”) were indicted for sexual intercourse on nine occasions with D, a person with a intellectual disability living in the instant facility (hereinafter “victims”), etc. (hereinafter “instant sexual crime”), and were sentenced to imprisonment with labor each under the Changwon District Court Decision 2014Gohap9, 56 (Joint), 63 (Joint), 74 (Joint), and 99 (Joint) on June 3, 2014).

(B) The instant sexual crime was found guilty in the appellate court, and the appellate court's judgment became final and conclusive on November 14, 2014.

After undergoing the hearing procedure against the plaintiff, on July 16, 2014, the defendant Busan Metropolitan City Mayor (hereinafter "the defendant Mayor") issued a disposition to revoke the permission to establish a social welfare foundation (hereinafter "the defendant head") pursuant to Article 26 (1) 6 of the Social Welfare Services Act on the ground that repeated collective sexual crimes have occurred in the facility of this case, and the defendant Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter "the defendant head") also issued a disposition to revoke the permission to establish a social welfare foundation against the plaintiff on July 25, 2014 on the ground that repeated collective crimes have occurred between the facility residents (hereinafter "the second disposition of this case"). D. The defendant Mayor issued a disposition to order the closure of the facility of this case on the ground that the repeated collective crimes have occurred among the facility residents pursuant to Article 40 (1) 2 and 9 of the Social Welfare Services Act (hereinafter "the defendant head").

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission seeking revocation of the first disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on September 18, 2014.