1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

On June 13, 2014, the Defendant’s facilities 1B against the Plaintiff.

1. The court's explanation concerning this part of the grounds for appeal is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part 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.

2. Whether the disposition taken to receive the subsidy in this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion and the plaintiff

B. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. 1) As to the assertion on the part concerning the unfair claim for personnel expenses for life guides excessively placed, and 2) The reasoning for this part concerning the argument on the exclusive placement of facility employees is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the following parts, and therefore, this part 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.) The following parts are added between the 11th sentence and 17th sentence of the judgment of the first instance. ① The number of life rehabilitation instructors on the basis of 77 persons admitted to the first instance judgment is 33, while the number of life rehabilitation instructors on the basis of 32 persons admitted to the first instance judgment based on 37 persons admitted to the first instance judgment (72 to 60 persons), and the 32 persons admitted to the first instance judgment maintained the life guidance number of the facility employees from 28 to 28 persons (30 persons a week), and the following parts are added between the 13th sentence and 66th sentence.

The Defendant asserts that the integrated operation of personnel by job type under the instant guideline should be permitted only to “Exceptional cases where the individual facility does not receive human resources support in accordance with the standards for human resources support by job type of the living facility for disabled persons” and that the integrated operation is not permitted because B received all of these support. However, according to the entry of the evidence No. 2-3, the instant guideline in 2014 is based on the conditions of the operation of the facility.