beta
Text
1. The imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 30,00,000 against the Plaintiff on November 1, 2013 by the Defendant, and the suspension of qualification for the president nine months.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From December 3, 1998 to December 3, 1998, the Plaintiff is operating the instant childcare center as the president of C Child Care Center, a private child care center located in Seodaemun-gu, Daegu (hereinafter “instant child care center”).
B. On July 16, 2013, the Defendant: (a) as a result of the guidance and inspection on the instant childcare center on July 16, 2013, determined that: (b) while the Plaintiff had an unqualified E, an infant care teacher, at the time of absence of the hospital, take charge of the Pakistan 4 classes; (c) requested subsidies; and (d) reported F as an infant care teacher, the Defendant had the infant care teacher G operate the vehicle, thereby unfairly receiving the F’s wage amount.
C. Accordingly, on August 30, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the prior disposition, received the Plaintiff’s written opinion from the Plaintiff, and followed the hearing procedure on September 16, 2013. On November 1, 2013, the Defendant issued an order to the Plaintiff for the imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 30,00,000,00 in lieu of nine months of the suspension of operation pursuant to Article 38 and Article 39 of the Enforcement Rule of the Infant Care Act (Article 40 subparag. 3, 45, 45-2, and 46 subparag. 4 of the Infant Care Act, and Article 38 and Article 39 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (Article 10-10, Oct. 9, 2014) to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s submission of the written opinion, and the Plaintiff returned the Plaintiff’s absence of the eligibility to receive the basic infant care fees to the Plaintiff (Article 40 subparag. 7, 2013).
2) Although the O driver F was appointed and dismissed, the actual driving of the O driver G is operated by G and the supply and demand of F’s wages (hereinafter “the ground for Disposition 2”).
(D) Each disposition of this case was rendered.
The plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal, but the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the appeal on December 30, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap No. 1, and Eul No. 2.