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 operated the “C Child Care Center” in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and worked as the president.

B. On June 21, 2010, the Plaintiff was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of false accusation, and was detained by law, and was living in the Seoul detention center, etc. until April 20, 201.

C. On February 6, 2014, the Defendant issued an order to return subsidies of KRW 1,578,00,000 pursuant to Article 40 subparag. 3 of the Infant Care Act on the ground that the Plaintiff’s acceptance of subsidies by fraud or other improper means (i.e., KRW 300,000 per month x 10 months x 10 months) during the period in which the Plaintiff was admitted to a detention center.

At the same time, on the ground that the Plaintiff received subsidies or appropriated subsidies by fraud or other improper means, 3.9 million won in lieu of the disposition of suspension of operation under Article 45(1)1 of the Infant Care Act (i.e., KRW 130,000 per day x 30 days) and the disposition of suspension of qualification for the head of a child care center under Article 46 of the same Act was taken for one month.

After that, on August 8, 2014, the Defendant issued an order to return subsidies, which reduces the amount of KRW 15.78 million from KRW 15.2 million to KRW 4.2 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 28 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Since the Plaintiff’s mistake of facts as to the grounds for disposition committed an act of confinement in the Seoul detention center from June 21, 2010 to April 20, 201, the Plaintiff actually performed the duties of the head of the childcare center through the interview to D, who is the teacher of the childcare center, 2-5 times a week through the interview, etc., the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received the benefits received as the head of the childcare center during that period. 2) The Plaintiff’s deviation and abuse of discretionary power, etc., led to a sound confinement by means of evidence manipulation, etc.