1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the Defendant against the disposition indicated in the [Attachment 1] No. 3 against the Plaintiff on March 14, 2016.

1. Although the plaintiff filed a lawsuit identical to the original purport of the claim, the court of first instance revoked each disposition listed in the separate sheet 3 and 5 and the revocation of the entrustment of B childcare centers, and dismissed each claim for revocation of each disposition listed in the separate sheet 1 No. 1, 2, and 4, respectively. While the defendant filed an appeal as to each of the above revocation parts, the plaintiff did not file an appeal as to each of the above dismissal parts, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to each of the dispositions listed in the separate sheet 3 and 5 (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”) against the plaintiff on March 14, 2016 and each of the revocation of the entrustment of B childcare centers (hereinafter “instant revocation of entrustment”).

2. The grounds for this part of the disposition are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from the second to the third one). Thus, the grounds for this part of the disposition are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. Whether an improvement order based on the Social Welfare Services Act is possible or this part of the reasoning is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance (from the third to the fifth to the fifth to eighth), and thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. On January 2015, 2015, since the Plaintiff’s funds for operation of the childcare center of this case alleged by the Plaintiff are insufficient, payment of overtime work allowances (attached Form 1 No. 3) (1) is insufficient.

2. An order of improvement issued on the ground that the payment of overtime work allowance is not possible, and the payment of overtime work allowance is unfair, since the Plaintiff 50% of the total amount of overtime work allowance, and the remaining childcare staff paid 10% of the total amount of overtime work allowance after the reduction of overtime work allowance, and the payment of the unpaid portion after the reduction of overtime work allowance is made.

(A) Determination (A)