1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s revocation and penalty surcharge against the Plaintiff on April 14, 2015.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is the president of the child-care center C (hereinafter referred to as the "child-care center of this case") located in Dong Government-si B, and D is the child-care center of this case.

B. The Defendant issued a disposition of KRW 1,00,00,000 from the District Prosecutors' Office of the Government, upon considering D’s appearance of the infant E (hereinafter referred to as the “child victim”), who is an infant attending the child care center of this case, on the ground that the Plaintiff and D were subject to a disposition of KRW 1,00,000,00, respectively, depending on the fact that D’s physical abuse was determined by the specialized child protection agency. The Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s qualification as the head on April 14, 2015 pursuant to Articles 48(1)3 and 45-2(1) of the former Infant Care Act (Amended by Act No. 13321, May 18, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) and imposed a penalty surcharge on the Plaintiff in lieu of the disposition of suspending the operation of the child care center of six months.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"). [Grounds for recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 8, and evidence No. 2-1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not conduct a prior investigation as prescribed by the Administrative Procedures Act in rendering the instant disposition and did not present the grounds and reasons for the disposition. 2) D merely replaced the saves with the saves of the saves of the victimized child at the saves of the saves of the victimized child at the saves of the saves of the victimized child at the saves of the saves of the victimized child, and

3) Of the instant disposition, the revocation of qualification as the principal does not constitute grounds for the disposition under Article 48(1)3 of the former Infant Protection Act, and even if there exist grounds for the said disposition, it is excessively excessive in light of the degree and circumstances of the act of child abuse committed by D, and thus, is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion. 4) The Plaintiff is related to the child care teachers of the instant case in order to prevent child abuse.