1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff A operates the Plaintiff’s Social Welfare Foundation B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s Child Care Center”) in Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

B. Although the audit result of the Board of Audit and Inspection in 2013 worked for “E” corporation without working for the Plaintiff’s childcare center from November 2009, it was confirmed that the Plaintiff received subsidies from November 2009 to February 2, 2012 with respect to a person who does not actually work for the Plaintiff, the Defendant issued a false disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s reimbursement of subsidies on April 22, 2014, pursuant to Articles 30, 40, 45, and 46 of the former Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 9792, Oct. 9, 209; hereinafter the same) and the disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s reimbursement of KRW 3 months, suspension of qualification for the president, three months, 5, 192, and 860 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

C. Plaintiff A dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Chungcheongbuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said claim was dismissed on June 30, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1 Article 19 (1) of the Infant Care Act only requires the management of matters concerning appointment and dismissal, career, etc. of childcare workers, and does not have any separate sanctions such as administrative disposition against neglect of reporting on appointment and dismissal or delay report. It is a subsidy that is naturally paid to one of the cooking department and paid to F, etc. who performs cooking work as personnel expenses. Since it is a subsidy that can be paid through normal procedures, and since the subsidy is paid to F, etc. who actually worked as cooking department, it cannot be viewed as receiving a subsidy by fraud or other improper means. Since the subsidy that is naturally paid to one of the cooking department is paid to D after retirement, it is personnel expenses for those who work as cooking department on behalf of D.