logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2021.02.19 2020구단7195
과징금부과처분취소
Text

1. The Defendant’s imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 6,900,000 against the Plaintiff on February 13, 2020 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the head of Ansan-si, who operates the C Child Care Center (hereinafter “C Child Care Center”) which is a private child care center located in Ansan-si B.

B. On October 14, 2019, the Defendant conducted a guidance inspection for the second half of 2019 (hereinafter “first inspection”) with respect to the child care center of this case. On November 11, 2019, the Defendant issued the instant corrective order pursuant to Article 4 subparag. 4-8 of the Infant Care Act (hereinafter “instant corrective order”) with respect to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s reuse of food that was provided to the meal service in the braille at the first inspection and provided the meals to the child of this case for a short period of time, and this constitutes a violation of the school meal management standards as stipulated in Article 33 of the Infant Care Act and Article 34 of the Enforcement Rule of the former Infant Care Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 744, Sept. 1, 2020; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule”).

(c)

On November 26, 2019, the Defendant issued a second inspection on the childcare center for extended hours (hereinafter “second inspection”) in the second half of the year of 2019, and then issued a disposition to impose a penalty of KRW 6.9 million in lieu of the disposition of suspension of operation on the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 45(1)3 and 45-2(1) of the Infant Care Act on February 13, 2020 on the ground that “The Plaintiff reuses food that had been provided for the meal service for extended hours to children during the second inspection, and it was discovered that the Plaintiff provided the meal service.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 18, witness D's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Attached Form of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

3. Whether the instant disposition is legitimate 1) Article 34 [Attachment 8] subparagraph 3(b)(5) of the Enforcement Rule that provides for the detailed standards for the management of meal services for childcare centers pursuant to the delegation of Article 33 of the Infant Care Act.

arrow