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 the president who operates a family-based childcare center (hereinafter “instant childcare center”) under the trade name called “C childcare center” in the Gu Government-si B and 210 Dong 101.

B. On March 25, 2016, the Defendant issued an order to return subsidies to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 40 subparag. 3, Article 45(1)1, and Article 46 subparag. 4 of the Infant Care Act on the grounds of the following violations, 8,289, and Article 46 subparag. 4 of the Infant Care Act, 1 year in which the operation of the childcare center was suspended, and 1 year in which

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). As a result, as a result of the E registered as a teacher in charge of the Child Care Center D (0, 1) on September 9, 2015 to January 27, 2016, a child registered in D was taken care of at FF (0, 1) during the A.M., a total of six children were taken care of at FF in violation of 1:3, a teacher’s percentage.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff denied the basic childcare fees of KRW 7,359,650, which can be provided when meeting the school teacher's ratio.

Although illegal receipt E, such as teachers’ working environment improvement expenses following a false report on infant care teachers, served as part-time teachers for four hours from 15 December 1, 2015 to 19 January 27, 2016, the Plaintiff denied 930,000 won in total, including teachers’ working environment improvement expenses, improvement expenses for treatment, additional treatment improvement expenses, special work allowances, etc. (hereinafter “school teachers’ working environment improvement expenses, etc.”) that E cannot receive if it is a part-time teacher.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, and the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on June 22, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion E serves from September 9, 2015 to December 29, 2015, and from September 29, 2015 to December 18, 2015, and only during the period from December 30, 2015 to January 27, 2016.