1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 1, 2008, the Plaintiff is the president who operated the C Child Care Center, a private infant care institution in the city B (hereinafter “instant Child Care Center”).

B. D, as a child of 2 years of age, who is eligible for basic childcare fees, did not meet the total number of days of attendance eligible for full payment of childcare fees and basic childcare fees in December 2012 and January 2013, 201, after entering the child care center of this case as Japan on December 14, 2012 and entering the school of this case on January 25, 2013.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff received the full amount of basic childcare fees from the Defendant for the aforementioned period, even though the Plaintiff was paid only part of the childcare fees and the basic childcare fees for the portion of D’s December 2012 and January 2013. However, D’s father visiting the instant childcare center was required to pay the full amount of childcare fees for December 2012 and January 2013, and received the full amount of basic childcare fees from the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as "the primary violation" in the act of receiving the full amount of childcare fees and the basic childcare fees.

Accordingly, on November 26, 2003, the Defendant issued subsidies by fraud or other improper means to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff received subsidies by fraud or other improper means under Article 40 subparag. 3 of the Infant Care Act, and thus, imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 3,450,00 in lieu of suspension of operation, imposition of basic infant care fees of KRW 1,610,00 (in accordance with the refund provisions, the total number of children x 7 persons x 15,000 (basic child care fees for the second half-year period) x 2 months) and the return disposition by the Plaintiff, one month of the kindergarten qualification (from January 1, 2014 to January 31, 2014) (hereinafter referred to as “advance disposition”).

AB made it.

E. However, in full view of the results of on-site verification on February 18, 2014, details of the date of operation made in January 2014, details of official documents sent during the same period, and the details of the Plaintiff’s statement of infant care teachers, etc. who worked at the instant child care center during January, 201, the Defendant, upon receiving the disposition of suspension of the above principal qualification, performed its duties within the period of suspension.