1. On May 11, 2015, the Defendant’s disposition of closure of facilities and disposition of return of subsidies granted to the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 1, 2007, the Plaintiff reported the establishment of a child welfare facility to the Defendant, and is operating a C regional child center located in Gyeongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter “instant child center”).

B. On May 11, 2015, the Defendant rendered a facility closure and a subsidy return disposition to the Plaintiff on the following grounds (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant disposition”).

The facts which form the cause of the disposition of the facility closure - Operation for the purpose other than the purpose of the regional children's center - Operation for the local children's center as a religious facility, and operation as a pastor such as towing, drawing, and supporting workers at the time of operating holidays, confirming the fact that he/she performed an activity not suitable for the purpose of the establishment of the original local children's center - Contents of the legal basis and provisions - clerical error in Article 56 (1) 3 of the Child Welfare Act - Article 56 (1) 3

If it is deemed unnecessary to continue to operate the subsidy due to the achievement of the purpose of its establishment or other reasons - The fact that the cause of the disposition is the cause of the return of the subsidy - the return of the illegal receipt of the local child center - the return of the subsidy - the local child center is considered to be operated normally at the time of operation on Sundays, but it is confirmed that the local child center was operated in violation of the purpose of its operation (operation as a religious facility) and thus, the legal basis and content of the return 1,634,400 won seems to be a clerical error in Article 56(1)5 of the Child Welfare Act.

Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the Child Welfare Act (Standards for Administrative Disposition) if the subsidy was granted by fraud or other improper means;

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Gyeongnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on June 24, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 4, and 19, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The procedural defect of this case 1.