1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

The reasoning for this part of this Court is that the Infant Care Act (wholly amended by Act No. 15892, Dec. 11, 2018; hereinafter “ Infant Care Act”) is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except that the Infant Care Act (wholly amended by Act No. 15892, Dec. 11, 2018; hereinafter “ Infant Care Act”) is applied in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Article 30(5)4 of the Infant Care Act and Article 32-2 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Infant Care Act (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 631, Jun. 12, 2019; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Infant Care Act”) provide that the assessment certification may be revoked if a child care teacher or staff member of a child care center who has received the evaluation certification violates Article 17 of the Child Welfare Act. However, the above provision should be interpreted as not to apply where there is any justifiable reason not to cause the installer or operator of a child care center to neglect his/her duty.

However, the Plaintiff did not neglect to pay due attention and supervision to prevent the occurrence of a violation of the Child Welfare Act in the child care center operated by itself. Since the Plaintiff’s act of infant care teacher D was unforeseeable as the Plaintiff, there is a justifiable reason not to charge the Plaintiff’s negligence of duty, and therefore, the Defendant’s disposition based only on D’s child welfare act is unlawful as it goes against the principle of self-responsibility.

In relevant administrative cases, the decision to revoke the selection of public child care centers of this case for the reason of deviation from and abuse of discretionary power has become final and conclusive, and the child abuse of infant care teachers D was very insignificant, and the judgment of the appellate court related to the criminal case also includes the same purport, and the plaintiff shall be the child care centers of this case.