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 person who establishes and operates the “C Child Care Center” in the Gu and Si B (hereinafter “C Child Care Center”).

On April 20, 2010, the day care center of this case was designated as a day-time childcare center [the day-time childcare center (07:30-19:30) and extended the time to 24:00 hours after the lapse of the standard day-time childcare period].

B. On November 19, 2014, the Defendant: (a) conducted on-site inspections on the instant childcare center on November 19, 2014; (b) determined that the Plaintiff falsely registered two extended childcare teachers and ten childcare children from March 1, 2014 to November 19, 2014.

C. After the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of an administrative disposition on January 30, 2015, the Defendant issued a notice of the administrative disposition on February 12, 2015, and on February 24, 2015, following the hearing procedure on February 24, 2015, issued a disposition of unjust enrichment of KRW 21,60,00 and KRW 2,080 of the subsidies for work hours, KRW 6,56,40,00 of the Infant Care Act on April 6, 2015, pursuant to Article 40 Subparag. 3, 45(1)1, Article 46 Subparag. 4, and Article 48(1)4 of the Infant Care Act, and Article 21(1) of the Act on the Right to Use Social Services and the Right to Use Child Care, the Defendant issued a disposition of closure of child care centers, suspension of the principal’s qualifications, revocation of the designation of infant care teachers, and collection of unjust enrichment of KRW 400.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) d. of the instant disposition of closure of childcare centers.

On April 13, 2015, the Plaintiff sought revocation of each disposition on April 6, 2015 to the Standing Committee for Administrative Appeals. However, the Plaintiff was dismissed on June 29, 2015.

【Reason for Recognition】 Each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings of Evidence A, Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (including each number)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was a case where the guardian of a child for extended one-hour infant care leaves the school before night infant care hours. However, the child care center of this case, from March 1, 2014 to November 19, 2014, provided infant care services between 20:00-21:00 per week average from March 1, 2014 to 20:3 days from November 19, 2014, and provided services as infant care teachers for extended hours. As D and E, subsidies are granted.