1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a holder of a certificate of infant care teacher (Grade I) and was appointed and reported to the Defendant as a child care teacher of the “C Child care center” located in Songpa-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant child care center”) from March 2, 2012 to February 2, 2016. D, the husband of the Plaintiff, is the representative of the instant child care center.

B. On March 2, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the qualification of infant care teachers pursuant to Article 48 of the Infant Care Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s appointment and dismissal at the instant nursery facilities is reported, but in fact another person works as infant care teachers” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a petition for adjudication with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on September 11, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff was actually engaged in the duties of infant care teachers and school teachers, and there is no ground for the instant disposition since there was no violation of Article 22-2 of the Infant Care Act. 2) The instant disposition is unlawful in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s child care day and day care day, day care day and day care day, and day care for children directly prepared a monthly educational plan; (b) the Plaintiff is eligible for infant care teachers; and (c) the revocation of the designation of infant care teachers was excessively harsh.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. On May 23, 2014, the Defendant issued a corrective order with respect to the instant childcare facilities, such as “F (A) teachers, G (A) appointment and dismissal, and failure to report on dismissal, dismissal, and dismissal,” to the president of the instant childcare facilities on May 23, 2014.

B. On March 7, 2016, the Defendant received a civil petition report that child abuse occurred at the child care facility of this case.