1. The Defendant’s disposition of improvement order issued on December 1, 2016 and the disposition of ordering the return of subsidies of KRW 3,573,100 to the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a social welfare foundation that operates a child rearing facility A, etc. in the city B.

B. On March 4, 2016, the Defendant issued the first corrective order to the Plaintiff on the ground that: (a) from August 25, 2015, the Plaintiff recruited the Plaintiff as a living instructor (child care instructor); and (b) the Plaintiff did not have his/her employees as infant care workers; and (c) had them work as an office worker.

C. On December 1, 2016, the Defendant: (a) Article 40(1)4 of the former Social Welfare Services Act (Amended by Act No. 13996, Feb. 3, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (b) Article 26-2 and attached Table 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground that the Plaintiff operated the facility unfairly as follows:

2. Considering that the case falls under subparagraph 4 (c) (other unfair acts related to the operation of accounting and facilities) of individual standards and Article 42 (3) 1 of the former Social Welfare Services Act (the case where a subsidy is received by false or other unjust means), the second order of improvement and disposition of subsidies and the order of return of KRW 3,573,100 was issued.

(1) There is a fact that the registration of fingerprinting facilities in the place of commuting to and from their place of work has been made by registering the fingerprinting with C as a fingerprinting employee C (hereinafter “instant disposition”). (1) (2014-2015) (hereinafter “grounds for Disposition 1”)

(2) 2) - The fact that the management of commuting to and from work is excessive (hereinafter referred to as “grounds for Disposition 2”) - With approval from the public column for commuting to and from work at the facility site (current status of overtime work) - The case where the person has not been aware of his/her fingerprints after the lapse of working hours or his/her fingerprints prior to his/her leaving work hours or fingerprints prior to his/her leaving work hours (if he/she is unable to do so), there are many cases where the person has been chronic negligence in the management of commuting to and from work of his/her employees - The fact that the person has been unable to perform the prescribed working hours due to attendance, etc. - The fact that the person has been treated as being on the part of his/her employees who have not performed the prescribed working