1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff A is the representative who operates D Child Care Center (hereinafter “Child Care Center in this case”) on the 3rd floor of Gwangjin-si Educational Center, and Plaintiff B is the principal of the Child Care Center in this case.

B. On May 8, 2013, the Defendant conducted a guidance and inspection on the instant childcare center. As a result, the Plaintiffs filed a false report on the fact that they had taken care of teachers who did not actually take care of, and received subsidies by unjust or other unlawful means, and thus, deemed that the subsidies were granted by false or other unlawful means under Article 40 subparag. 3 of the Infant Care Act, the Defendant issued an order to return subsidies of KRW 805,000 to Plaintiff A pursuant to Articles 40, 45, and 45-2 of the Infant Care Act and imposed a penalty of KRW 1,050,000 in lieu of 15 days of suspension of operation, and the Plaintiff B issued a disposition of suspending the qualification of the president pursuant to Article 46 subparag. 4 of the Infant Care Act.

(hereinafter “each disposition of this case”). (c)

The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but were dismissed on November 6, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the husband of the child care center E was hospitalized into a rare disease and applied for leave from March 4, 2013 to March 9, 2013. Since then, E was unable to work continuously due to the lack of circumstance, and the plaintiffs were employed as substitute teacher F on March 10, 2013, and thereafter E was in charge of the child care service of the NNF. Since around April 10, 2013, E was in attendance from around April 10, 2013, E was appointed as a regular teacher, and appointed and dismissed the defendant on April 2, 2013. The plaintiffs failed to make a proper report on appointment and dismissal due to a simple error that is not intended while considering the inevitable circumstances of E.

In addition, the plaintiffs paid 90,000 won for March paid to E.