1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

From April 20, 2004, the Plaintiff operated the instant childcare center under the name of “C Child Care Center” and “D Child Care Center” in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

On July 14, 2014, the Plaintiff obtained a child-care center evaluation certification (hereinafter “instant evaluation certification”) from the Defendant as to the instant child-care center from August 1, 2014 to August 14, 2017, with respect to the term of validity of the instant child-care center (hereinafter “instant evaluation certification”).

The Plaintiff’s husband E, from September 30, 208 to December 26, 2014, subsidized after-school teachers to work as the driver of the instant childcare center from around December 30, 2014. On October 22, 2015, the Seoul Southern District Court appealed from the Seoul Southern District Court on “F (the age of 8 at that time) who participated in after-school classes at the instant childcare center on September 22, 2008, caused the said victim to be forced to commit an indecent act four times by forcing him/her to face his/her sexual organ or to rapidly face his/her fingers (hereinafter “instant violation”). The Defendant appealed against the crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims Thereof, which became final and conclusive on April 8, 2016.

On August 5, 2016, the Defendant issued the Plaintiff a notice of violation of the Child Welfare Act (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2015.10, October 22, 2015.) (hereinafter “instant disposition”) under Article 30(5)4 of the Infant Care Act (the part in subparagraph 3 of the written disposition appears to be the clerical error in subparagraph 4) (hereinafter “instant disposition”). [The grounds for recognition] without any dispute, Gap 1, 4, 5, 6, 9 evidence (including the number of pages), Eul 1, 3 evidence, and the entire purport of the pleadings, are as shown in the attached statutes pertaining to the determination of the legitimacy of the instant disposition.

Article 30 (5) of the Infant Care Act, which is presented by the defendant as the basis of the instant disposition, is legitimate or legitimate.