Plaintiff (Attorney Go Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

State Mayor (Attorney Go Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

October 2, 2013

Jeju District Court Decision 2012Guhap922 Decided July 17, 2013

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

3. On July 20, 2012, the disposition that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on July 20, 2012 suspending 15 days of qualification as the president shall be suspended by the date of the final judgment of this case.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of a subsidy of KRW 1,023,90 on June 25, 2012 and a penalty surcharge of KRW 1,050,00 (2,100,000 in lieu of one month of the suspension of operation of the claim in the complaint) on July 20, 2012, each of the disposition of suspending the original qualification of KRW 15 days (from January 17, 2013 to January 31, 2013, one month of the suspension of entry in the claim in the complaint, appears to be erroneous) and in lieu of 15 days of the suspension of operation of the child care center.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of ordering the return of KRW 169,000 out of the subsidy of KRW 1,023,90 on June 25, 2012 against the plaintiff, and the disposition of imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 1,050,000 in lieu of the 15th day of the suspension of the operation of a child care center on July 20, 2012, shall be revoked.

B. Defendant

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and all the plaintiff's claims corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is that the court's 9th 5th 9th scam of the first instance court's ruling "a deviation from or abuse of discretion" is "a deviation from or abuse of discretion." The court's 10th 9th scam of the first instance court's ruling "a legitimate disposition" is "a legitimate disposition that complies with the principle of proportionality." Thus, the court's explanation is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning for the first instance court's ruling, so it is accepted as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and all appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed as it is without merit. It is recognized that there is an urgent need to prevent damage that may be caused to the plaintiff due to the validity of the disposition of suspension of qualification as the head of this case, and there is no other data to recognize that the suspension of validity may have a significant impact on public welfare. Thus, the effect of the disposition of suspension of qualification as the head of this case shall be suspended ex officio by the date

Judges Sung Pung-sung (Presiding Judge)