Plaintiff

The Minister of Health and Welfare

October 8, 2015

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap10431 decided January 22, 2015

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

On March 11, 2014, the Defendant’s revocation of the evaluation certification for the childcare center operated by the Plaintiff is revoked.

The part concerning the plaintiff's claim is revoked in the judgment of the first instance. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) Unfair collection of the Plaintiff’s basic childcare fees;

1) On February 2004, the Plaintiff established the ○○○ apartment complex located in the Sinsan-si ( Address omitted) from that time to that of the △△△ Child Care Center, which is a private childcare center under Article 10 subparag. 7 of the Infant Care Act (hereinafter “child care center of this case”), and operated from that time to that day on the date of closing argument of this case.

2) In 2011, Osan-si paid a certain amount of basic childcare fees per child under the age of three who is enrolled in the relevant childcare center to the founder and operator of the private childcare center, etc. under the Defendant’s subsidy under Article 36 of the former Infant Care Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23618, Feb. 3, 2012); Article 24 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Infant Care Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23618, Feb. 3, 2012); Article 24 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Infant Care Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23618, Feb. 3, 2012).

본문내 포함된 표 ◆ 구 「영유아보육법」(2011. 8. 4. 법률 제11003호로 개정되어 2012. 2. 5. 시행되기 전의 것) ○ 제36조(비용의 보조 등) 국가나 지방자치단체는 대통령령으로 정하는 바에 따라 제10조에 따른 어린이집의 설치, 보육교사(대체교사를 포함한다)의 인건비, 초과보육에 드는 비용 등 운영 경비 또는 보육정보센터의 설치·운영, 보육교직원의 복지 증진, 취약보육의 실시 등 보육사업에 드는 비용의 전부 또는 일부를 보조한다. ◆ 구 「영유아보육법 시행령」(2012. 2. 3. 대통령령 제23618호로 개정되기 전의 것) ○ 제24조(비용의 보조) ① 법 제36조에 따라 국가 또는 지방자치단체는 예산의 범위에서 다음 각 호의 비용의 전부 또는 일부를 보조한다. 1. 어린이집의 설치, 증축·개축 및 개수·보수 비용 2. 보육교사 인건비 3. 교재·교구비 4. 보육정보센터의 설치·운영비 5. 보수교육 등 직원 교육훈련 비용 6. 장애아 보육 등 취약보육 실시 비용 7. 그 밖에 차량운영비 등 보건복지부장관 또는 해당 지방자치단체의 장이 어린이 집 운영에 필요하다고 인정하는 비용 ② 제1항에서 정한 비용의 지원방법 등에 관하여 필요한 사항은 보건복지부장관 또 는 해당 지방자치단체의 장이 정한다. ◆ 보건복지부장관의 「2011년도 보육사업 비용지원 지침」 7. 기본보육료 지원 가. 지원 대상 및 지원 근거 1) 지원 대상 ○ 정부지원시설을 제외한 민간·가정·직장·부모협동 보육시설 중 만 0~2세 아동 또는 장애아를 보육하는 시설 나. 지원 금액 ○ 1인당 지원기준단가 연령 0세 1세 2세 기본보육료 361,000원 174,000원 115,000원 ○ 출석일수 구간별 지원하고 입·퇴소월은 일할계산으로 지원 · 출석일수가 11일 이상 : 기본보육료 지원단가의 100% 지원 · 출석일수가 6-10일 : 기본보육료 지원단가의 50% 지원 · 출석일수가 1-5일 : 기본보육료 지원단가의 25% 지원 · 출석일수가 0일인 경우 : 기본보육료 미지원

3) The Plaintiff received 345,000 won (=the basic childcare fee for the month 115,000 x 3 months) from Osan-si, by filing an application for the payment of basic childcare fees, as if Nonparty 2, who is a child of 2 years of age, did not want the childcare center of this case in July, August, and September, 201, even though he did not want the childcare center of this case.

B. The plaintiff's improper collection of childcare fees

The Plaintiff was paid KRW 286,00 on July 201 with the right to use childcare services (child love card; hereinafter the same shall apply) under Article 34-3 of the Infant Care Act, which Nonparty 2, who is a child of 2 years of age, did not attend the child care center of this case in July 201, but was left by Nonparty 2’s parents.

본문내 포함된 표 ◆ 「영유아보육법」 ○ 제38조(보육료 등의 수납) 제12조부터 제14조까지의 규정에 따라 어린이집을 설치·운영하는 자는 그 어린이집의 소재지를 관할하는 시·도지사가 정하는 범위에서 그 어린이집을 이용하는 자로부터 보육료와 그 밖의 필요경비 등을 받을 수 있다. (단서 생략) ○ 제34조의3(보육서비스 이용권) ① 국가와 지방자치단체는 제34조 및 제34조의2에 따른 비용 지원을 위하여 보육서비스 이용권(이하 "이용권"이라 한다)을 영유아의 보호자에게 지급할 수 있다. ③ 이용권의 지급 및 이용 절차 등에 관하여 필요한 사항은 보건복지부령으로 정한다. ◆ 「영유아보육법 시행규칙」 ○ 제35조의3(보육서비스 이용권의 신청 및 발급) ② 영유아의 보호자는 법 제34조 제1항에 따른 비용을 지원받으려면 보육서비스 이용권을 어린이집에 제시하여야 한다. 이 경우 어린이집의 원장은 보육서비스 이용권이 이용자 본인에 의하여 정당하게 사용되고 있는지를 확인하여야 한다. ③ 국가와 지방자치단체는 영유아의 보호자가 제2항에 따라 보육서비스 이용권을 사용한 경우 그 사용한 금액에 해당하는 비용을 해당 어린이집에 지급하여야 한다. ○ 제35조의4(보육서비스 이용권의 전자적 관리) ① 보건복지부장관은 보육서비스 이용권을 전자적으로 발급·관리한다. (단서 생략)

C. Defendant’s evaluation certification

On January 1, 2012, pursuant to Article 30(1) of the Infant Care Act, the Defendant issued the instant child care center evaluation certification with the term of validity from January 1, 2012 to August 31, 2014 (hereinafter “instant evaluation certification”).

본문내 포함된 표 ◆「영유아보육법」 ○ 제30조(어린이집 평가인증) ① 보건복지부장관은 보육서비스의 질적 수준을 향상시키기 위하여 어린이집 설치·운영자의 신청에 따라 어린이집의 보육환경, 보육과정 운영 및 보육인력의 전문성 등을 평가하여 해당 어린이집에 대한 평가인증을 실시할 수 있다.

(d) Order to return subsidies, imposition of penalty surcharges, and suspension of qualifications for the head of a child care center;

1) On April 13, 2012, the Osan City ordered the Plaintiff to return KRW 345,000 of the subsidy in accordance with Article 40 Subparag. 3 of the Infant Care Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 345,000,00 from Nonparty 2’s basic infant care fees for July, 201, August, and September, 201, falling under the subsidy by fraud or other improper means (hereinafter “instant order to return KRW 345,000”).

The Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the order to return KRW 345,000 of the instant subsidy, and the Suwon District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on August 22, 2013 (Seoul District Court 2012Guhap12052), and the Seoul High Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on October 17, 2014 (Seoul High Court 2013Nu26172), and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

본문내 포함된 표 ◆「영유아보육법」 ○ 제40조(비용 및 보조금의 반환명령) 국가나 지방자치단체는 어린이집의 설치·운영자, 육아종합지원센터의 장, 보수교육 위탁실시자 등이 다음 각 호의 어느 하나에 해당하는 경우에는 이미 교부한 비용과 보조금의 전부 또는 일부의 반환을 명할 수 있다. 3. 거짓이나 그 밖의 부정한 방법으로 보조금을 교부받은 경우

2) On April 13, 2012, the Osan City ordered the Plaintiff to return KRW 286,000 of the subsidy to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 40 Subparag. 3 of the Infant Care Act on the ground that the Plaintiff received KRW 286,000 from July 201, which constitutes the subsidy by fraud or other improper means (hereinafter “instant order to return the subsidy”).

The Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the order to return KRW 286,000 of the instant subsidy, and the Suwon District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on August 22, 2013 (Uwon District Court 2012Guhap12052), and the Plaintiff withdrawn this part of the lawsuit from the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2013Nu26172).

3) On April 13, 2012, the Osan City imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 6,300,000 on the ground that the Plaintiff received KRW 345,00,00, a total of KRW 631,00,00, based on the basic childcare fees for July 201, August 8, 9, and September, and the childcare fees for July 201, under Articles 45(1)1 and 45-2(1) of the Infant Care Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff received KRW 631,00,000, in lieu of three months of the suspension of the operation of the pertinent childcare center.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 6,300,00, and the Suwon District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on August 22, 2013 (Seoul District Court 2012Guhap12052), and the Seoul High Court rendered a judgment revoking the disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 6,30,000 on October 17, 2014 (Seoul High Court 2-2-2-345,00 basic childcare fees for July 201, but the amount of KRW 286,00 for childcare fees of KRW 286,00 on July 201, on the premise that the amount of the penalty surcharge of KRW 345,00 was granted by fraud or other improper means, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around July 2012 (Seoul High Court 2013Nu26172, supra).

본문내 포함된 표 ◆「영유아보육법」 ○ 제45조(어린이집의 폐쇄 등) ① 보건복지부장관, 시·도지사 및 시장·군수·구청장은 어린이집을 설치·운영하는 자(이하 이 조에서 "설치·운영자"라 한다)가 다음 각 호의 어느 하나에 해당하면 1년 이내의 어린이집 운영정지를 명하거나 어린이집의 폐쇄를 명할 수 있다. (후문 생략) 1. 거짓이나 그 밖의 부정한 방법으로 보조금을 교부받거나 보조금을 유용한 경우 ○ 제45조의2(과징금 처분) ① 보건복지부장관, 시·도지사 또는 시장·군수·구청장은 어린이집의 설치·운영자가 제45조 제1항 각 호의 어느 하나에 해당하여 어린이집 운영정지를 명하여야 하는 경우로서 그 운영정지가 영유아 및 보호자에게 심한 불편을 주거나 그 밖에 공익을 해칠 우려가 있으면 어린이집 운영정지 처분을 갈음하여 3천만원 이하의 과징금을 부과할 수 있다.

4) On April 13, 2012, the Osan City suspended Nonparty 1’s child care center’s qualification for three months pursuant to Article 46 subparag. 4 and Article 51 of the Infant Care Act on the ground that the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 631,00,00,00 from Nonparty 2’s basic child care fees for July 201, August, 201, and September, as well as KRW 345,00, which correspond to the subsidies by fraud or other improper means (hereinafter “the suspension of Nonparty’s child care center’s qualification for three months”).

The non-party 1 filed an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the three-month suspension of the head qualification of this case. On August 22, 2013, the Suwon District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the non-party 1's claim (the Suwon District Court 2012Guhap12052), and the Seoul High Court rendered a judgment revoking the entire suspension of the head qualification of this case on October 17, 2014, which became final and conclusive around July 2011 by Non-party 2-2's basic childcare fees of KRW 345,000 on July 201, but the childcare fees of KRW 286,000 on the premise that the subsidies were not granted by fraud or other improper means, and thus, the period of suspension of the head qualification of this case should be re-calculated on the premise that the subsidies were granted KRW 345,000 by fraud or other improper means (Seoul High Court 2013Nu26172, supra).

본문내 포함된 표 ◆「영유아보육법」 ○ 제46조(어린이집의 원장의 자격정지) 보건복지부장관은 어린이집의 원장이 다음 각 호의 어느 하나에 해당하면 1년 이내의 범위에서 보건복지부령으로 정하는 바에 따라 그 자격을 정지시킬 수 있다. 4. 거짓이나 그 밖의 부정한 방법으로 보조금을 교부받거나 보조금을 유용한 경우 ○ 제51조(권한의 위임) 이 법에 따른 보건복지부장관 또는 시·도지사의 권한은 대통령령으로 정하는 바에 따라 그 일부를 시·도지사 또는 시장·군수·구청장에게 위임할 수 있다.

E. Defendant’s revocation of evaluation certification

On March 11, 2014, the Defendant received an order to return subsidies of KRW 345,00 on April 13, 2012 pursuant to Article 40 subparag. 3 of the Infant Care Act; ② on April 13, 2012, the Plaintiff received an order to return subsidies of KRW 286,000 in accordance with Article 40 subparag. 3 of the Infant Care Act; ③ on April 13, 2012, Nonparty 1 of the instant childcare center was subject to a three-month suspension order as the head of the childcare center pursuant to Article 46 subparag. 4 of the Infant Care Act on April 13, 2012 (hereinafter “instant revocation order”).

본문내 포함된 표 ◆「영유아보육법」 ○ 제30조(어린이집 평가인증) ⑤ 보건복지부장관은 제1항에 따라 평가인증을 받은 어린이집의 설치·운영자가 다음 각 호의 어느 하나에 해당하는 경우에는 그 평가인증을 취소할 수 있다. 다만, 제1호에 해당하는 경우에는 그 인증을 취소하여야 한다. 3. 제40조 제2호 또는 제3호에 따라 보조금의 반환명령을 받았거나, 제45조 또는 제46조부터 제48조까지의 규정에 따른 행정처분을 받은 경우(시정명령을 받은 경우는 제외한다)

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's 5 through 8, 10, 22, 23, 25, 31 through 34, 37 through 46, 50 through 52 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether grounds for disposition exist;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the order of return of KRW 345,00 of the subsidy of this case, the order of return of KRW 286,000 of the subsidy of this case, and the disposition of revocation of the evaluation certification of this case on this ground is unlawful since the disposition of suspension for three months of the original qualification of this case is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s receipt of KRW 345,00 in total of the basic childcare fees from Osan-si for July, August, 201, and September of 201, as if Nonparty 2 did not wish to do so at the Child Care Center in July, August, and September of 201, by applying for the payment of the basic childcare fees from Osan-si. The said basic childcare fees constitute subsidies granted pursuant to Article 36 of the Infant Care Act, Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the Infant Care Act, and the Defendant’s guidelines for subsidization of childcare expenses in 2011, and thus, the Plaintiff constitutes the case where the Plaintiff received subsidies by fraudulent or other unjust means under Article 40 subparag. 3 of the Infant Care Act.

Therefore, an order to return a subsidy of KRW 345,00 is lawful (the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was affirmed by filing an administrative suit seeking revocation of the order to return a subsidy of KRW 345,000), and the Defendant may take the above order as the ground for revocation of the evaluation certification of this case.

2) Although the Plaintiff did not take care of Nonparty 2 in July 201, Nonparty 2 paid childcare fees of KRW 286,00 for July 201 with the right to use childcare services held by Nonparty 2’s parents, as seen earlier, but this does not constitute subsidies under Article 36 of the Infant Care Act, given that Nonparty 2’s parents paid childcare fees pursuant to Article 38 of the Infant Care Act and do not constitute childcare subsidies (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du28032, Jun. 12, 2014). Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff received subsidies by fraudulent or other unjust means under Article 40 subparag. 3 of the Infant Care Act on the ground that the Plaintiff received them by illegal means.

Therefore, the order to return the subsidy of this case 286,00 won is unlawful, and the defendant cannot make the above order to return the subsidy of this case as the ground for revocation of the evaluation certification of this case.

3) Since the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1’s child care fees of KRW 286,00 paid by Nonparty 2’s parents do not constitute subsidies, Nonparty 1 was granted subsidies of KRW 631,00,00 including the aforementioned child care fees of KRW 286,00 by fraud or other improper means (=basic child care fees of KRW 345,00 + childcare fees of KRW 286,000), the instant disposition of suspending the Plaintiff’s qualification for three months was unlawful. In addition, Nonparty 1 filed an administrative litigation seeking revocation of the instant child care disposition of KRW 3 months, and the said disposition became final and conclusive as seen earlier.

Therefore, the defendant cannot make a disposition of three-month suspension of the original qualification of this case as the ground for revocation of the evaluation certification of this case.

3. Whether the revocation of evaluation certification is retroactive;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that "the defendant's revocation disposition of the evaluation certification in this case on March 11, 2014 and the revocation disposition taken on April 13, 2012 is unlawful."

B. Determination

The revocation of an administrative act is an administrative disposition that retroactively extinguishs the validity of the administrative act in a case where there is an error in the administrative act itself due to a defect that existed at the time of establishment of the administrative act, and the withdrawal of the administrative act is an administrative disposition that retroactively extinguishs the validity of the administrative act in a case where it is no longer possible to continue the validity of the administrative act for the new reason that occurred after the establishment of the administrative act (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1959, Oct. 27, 2014, etc.

Article 30 (5) 3 of the Infant Care Act provides that "Where the founder and operator of a child care center who has received evaluation certification receives an order to return a subsidy pursuant to Article 40 subparagraph 3, the evaluation certification may be revoked." The revocation of evaluation certification under the above provision is not a defect in the evaluation itself at the time of the evaluation certification, but a case where the validity of the evaluation certification terminates on the ground of the order to return a subsidy, which is a new circumstance that occurred after the evaluation certification, and thus, it is reasonable to deem the legal nature thereof as falling under the revocation of evaluation certification.

Therefore, the validity of the instant evaluation certification shall be deemed to have expired in the future due to the instant evaluation revocation disposition from March 11, 2014, and the Defendant, unlike this, deemed to have terminated the validity of the instant evaluation certification from April 13, 2012, which was retroactively retroactive to April 13, 2012.

4. Whether the disposition of revocation of evaluation certification of this case is legitimate

A. Of the three grounds for the Defendant’s revocation of the instant evaluation certification, only the instant subsidy of KRW 345,00 is recognized as the grounds for disposition, and the instant subsidy of KRW 286,00 and the instant order of KRW 286,00 and the instant head qualification three-month suspension disposition is not recognized as the grounds for disposition. Thus, the instant evaluation revocation disposition cannot be deemed lawful, barring any special circumstance.

B. Where the validity of the instant disposition can be recognized only with the remaining grounds recognized even if some of the grounds for the instant disposition are not recognized, the relevant disposition may be deemed legitimate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du11813, Nov. 12, 2004; 2009Du19144, Feb. 25, 2010; 2009Du19144, Feb. 25, 2010); however, in addition, the instant disposition for the revocation of the instant evaluation is not recognized, and there is an error of law retroactively affecting the validity of the revocation, rather than maintaining the instant disposition for the revocation of the evaluation, it is reasonable to revoke the said disposition and make a decision again on the basis of the grounds recognized as the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Du36273, Jul. 24, 2014).

C. Therefore, the disposition of revocation of evaluation of this case is unlawful.

5. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim should be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jong-jin (Presiding Judge)