1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is working as the president of a child-care center while operating “C child-care center” in Seopo-si B (hereinafter “instant child-care center”).

B. The Plaintiff registered D as a class general teacher from September 2012 to September 2013, 2013, and received a total of KRW 11,713,110 from the Defendant during the said period as subsidies for improving the working environment of teachers, improving the ability of employees in childcare facilities, special allowances in rural areas, basic childcare fees, etc.

C. In addition, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for extended childcare fees from March 2013 to February 2014 on the ground that four of the children using the child care center of this case were lower than 9:30 p.m., and received subsidies from the Defendant.

On August 22, 2014, the Defendant received subsidies by means of false means, such as ① in fact, even if D did not work as a paper general teacher, and ② was falsely stated that four extended children wished to get out of 9:30 p.m. in actual p.m., and filed an excessive claim for childcare fees for extended hours, and ③ in addition, even if the employees of cooking department and driving officer were not employed separately, he/she used false documents and misappropriated personnel expenses as if he/she had employed them.” The Defendant issued an order to improve the payment of subsidies of KRW 11,713,110 for the sole reason that “(i) receive subsidies by means of fraudulent means, such as registration as paper general teacher even if D did not work as a paper general teacher, and (ii) collect unjust enrichment of KRW 756,00,000 for a period of time extension from 9:30 p.m. (hereinafter “each other disposition” except the above improvement order”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 20-9 and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff is merely passive in relation to the recovery of the subsidy in this case, the one-year suspension of president qualification, and the closure of facilities.