1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant’s disposition listed in attached Table 1 No. 9 against the Plaintiff on March 14, 2016, among the dispositions listed in attached Table 1 No. 617.

Although the plaintiff filed a lawsuit as stated in the initial purport of claim, the court of first instance revoked each disposition as stated in the No. 5,9, and 10 of the attached Table 1 and the revocation of the entrustment of a child care center B, and dismissed the remaining claims of the plaintiff. The defendant filed an appeal as to each of the above revocation parts, and the plaintiff filed an incidental appeal as to the disposition as stated in the attached Table 1 No. 4 (overtime payment of overtime service allowance).

Accordingly, the scope of this Court’s adjudication is limited to each disposition listed in the table 4, 5, 9, and 10 attached Table 1 (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”) and B’s revocation of the entrustment of child care centers (hereinafter “instant revocation of entrustment”).

Details of the disposition

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the statement on "1. Basic Facts" in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in attached Form 2;

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

A. Whether an improvement order based on the Social Welfare Services Act may be issued or not is based on this part of the reasoning of the court of first instance. The reasons are as follows: (a) the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 3 U.S.A. to 4 U.S. P. 3, 5 to 9 U.S. 6) is the same as the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) thus

B. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff paid overtime work allowance payment (attached Table 4) No. 1 without clear evidence, and the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was unfairly paid overtime work allowance without reasonable evidence, and the Plaintiff’s annual overtime work status book, which the Defendant referred, is an overtime work status book prepared by the teachers and cooks, and the Plaintiff was separately prepared and kept a Saturday work status book, and paid overtime work allowance for the Plaintiff on the basis thereof.

(2) Determination (A) A, 34 through 34.