logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.29 2017나45089
손해배상(국)
Text

1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

Reasons

1. The court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the co-defendant of the first instance court, the Republic of Korea, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and partly accepted the defendant's claim against the defendant. Since the court of first instance appealed to the part against which the defendant lost, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the part against the defendant among the plaintiff's claim against

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, including the status of the parties, was operating a childcare center in the apartment complex located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant childcare center”) around 2012.

The term of validity of the instant childcare center is from April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2012, and it was certified as a childcare center in Seoul on April 15, 2009.

B. On June 22, 2012, the Seoul Gangseo-gu Child Care Specialized Agency (hereinafter “Seoul Gangseo-gu Child Care Center”) rendered a decision on child abuse (refluence) against the Plaintiff et al. on the ground that “the Plaintiff et al. left alone in the facility as of June 12, 2012.” Although the procedure for reexamination was followed, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Judgment Committee again rendered a decision on child abuse (refluence) on August 20, 2012. 2) The Defendant filed a complaint against the Plaintiff and its infant care teachers on June 28, 2012 after being notified of the result of the said determination by the Seoul Gangseo-gu Child Care Agency.

3. On July 12, 2012, the Defendant requested the Seoul-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-type childcare center to cancel the accreditation of the Child Care Center. On June 22, 2012, the date of revocation of the accreditation was stated as the evaluation period, the expiration of the certification period, and the determination of child abuse.

On the other hand, on June 27, 2012, the Plaintiff expressed to the Korea Child Care Agency Evaluation and Accreditation Board the intent to waive the evaluation re-certification of the Child Care Agency, and the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on July 17, 2012.

arrow