1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. (1) On August 8, 2013, the Defendant returned 805,00 won of the subsidy granted to Plaintiff A.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff A is the representative who operates D Child Care Center (hereinafter “Child Care Center in this case”) on the 3rd floor of Gwangjin-si Educational Center, and Plaintiff B is the principal of the Child Care Center in this case.

B. As of March 2013, the number of infants in the child care center of this case is composed of a total of 21 persons and a total of 21 persons, a total of 2 years of age, a half-year-old (7 persons), a half-year-old (8 persons), and a half-year-old (6 persons).

C. On April 3, 2013, the child care center of this case asserted to the effect that the Plaintiffs and the Defendant agree on April 3, 2013, “basic child care fees for the month of March 2013” is a problem. However, according to the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s guidance guidelines for child care facilities in 2013, the basic child care fees should be paid based on the current use status of the previous month. Therefore, in this case where the issue is whether to work as infant care teachers in March 2013, it is reasonable to deem that the “basic child care fees for the April 2013” is a legitimate issue.

It seems that the plaintiffs and the defendant's assertion is due to a simple error in the use of the term, and it does not seem to be argued to the purport that it is a matter of whether or not the "basic childcare fee" is paid in March 2013.

Basic childcare fees of KRW 805,00 (i.e., the number of children 7 x 15,000 x 115,000 hereinafter referred to as “instant childcare subsidies”) were requested and approved by the Defendant.

On May 8, 2013, the Defendant conducted a guidance and inspection on the instant childcare center on May 8, 2013. As a result, by falsely reporting that the Plaintiffs had taken care of teachers who did not actually take care of, and wrongfully receiving subsidies, deeming that the case constitutes “cases of receiving subsidies by false or other unjust means” as stipulated in Article 40 subparag. 3 of the Infant Care Act, and on August 8, 2013, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to return subsidies of KRW 805,000 pursuant to Articles 40, 45, and 45-2 of the Infant Care Act (hereinafter referred to as “order to return subsidies”).

penalty surcharges in lieu of 15 days of suspension of operation 1,050.