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 representative of B childcare center in the Gu and Si (hereinafter “instant childcare center”).

A child care center of this case is designated as a child care center for extended hours (a facility for care extended by up to 24:00 hours after the lapse of the standard infant care hours (07:30-19:30)).

B. The actual operator of the Child Care Center in the instant case and the D Child Care Center located at a location not less than 300 meters away from the instant Child Care Center is E.

E retired on January 14, 2014, when the F of the D Child Care Center retired from office on January 14, 2014, the D Child Care Center was registered as a child of the D Child Care Center in this case, and the G, a child of the D Child Care Center in this case, had G, a child of the D Child Care Center in this case, take care of the said child in the D Child Care Center.

C. From April 2013 to February 2014, E registered the day-time extension group of D childcare centers of this case, H, a childcare teacher of the instant childcare center, after 18:30, had H, a childcare teacher of the instant childcare center, take care of the said child at D childcare center.

On June 29, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to recover the Plaintiff’s subsidy of KRW 16,060,00 due to false registration of a market extension teacher or child, or a false registration of a market extension teacher or an extended child under Article 45(1)1 and Article 40 subparag. 3 of the Infant Care Act (from July 6, 2015) and the subsidy of KRW 17,10,000 [the subsidy of KRW 170,00 due to false registration of a infant care teacher (child care teacher’s child care allowance, improvement of treatment expenses, special allowance for disabled infant care teacher and staff), and the subsidy of KRW 16,00,00 due to false registration of a market extension teacher (labor expenses, school teachers’ work improvement expenses, holiday leave, treatment improvement expenses, and allowance for infant care teacher and staff)].

(hereinafter “each disposition of this case”). 2. Whether each disposition of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion E does not have any choice to seek a new infant care teacher after F retired from D child care centers on January 14, 2014.