1. The revocation disposition issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on May 13, 2015 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From 2000 to 200, the Plaintiff is operating a child care center under Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Infant Care Act (hereinafter “C”) in the name of “C” in Gangnam-gu, Seoul.

C was granted the “evaluation certification” of the childcare center under Article 30 of the Infant Care Act by the Defendant.

B. D, a child care teacher who worked in C, was born in C on July 14, 2014, 5 years old, 5 years old, who was being taken care of in C classroom, 1.5 times the left shoulder of E, a child of 5 years old, 1.5 years old, 2 times in the left part of the floor, and continuously entered E, with the toilet, she turned E into the toilet, and her scam in his/her hands.

D For such acts, the crime of violating the Child Welfare Act (amended by Act No. 12361, Jan. 28, 2014; hereinafter “former Child Welfare Act”) is committed against the Child Welfare Act (hereinafter “former Child Welfare Act”).

(2) On January 22, 2015, the Seoul Northern District Court sentenced 6 months of imprisonment and 1 year of suspended execution (No. 2014Kadan3830), which were prosecuted as a violation of Article 17 Subparag. 3).

The prosecutor filed an appeal against the above judgment, and the Seoul Northern District Court reversed the above judgment on July 2, 2015 and sentenced D to six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution (2015No256).

D filed an appeal against the above appellate judgment, but the appeal was withdrawn on July 30, 2015, and the above appellate judgment became final and conclusive on the same day.

C. On May 13, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the “Evaluation Certification” against C was retroactively cancelled on January 22, 2015, which was the date on which the judgment of conviction was rendered, based on Article 30(5)4 of the Infant Care Act and Article 32-2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, on the grounds that “D was convicted of violating the Child Welfare Act.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The effect of the instant disposition shall accrue retroactively.