1. The Defendant’s disposition of suspending the operation of a child-care center against Plaintiff B on March 18, 2016 is revoked.

2. The plaintiff A's claim.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From November 23, 2015 to March 4, 2016, Plaintiff A worked as the president of the “D Child Care Center” located in the Busan-gun, Busan-gun (hereinafter “instant Child Care Center”); and Plaintiff B works as the head of the instant Child Care Center from March 5, 2016 to March 5, 2016.

B. On January 28, 2016, the Defendant reported that the child care center in this case was appointed and dismissed as the president and the F as office staff of the Defendant at the time of opening the school around September 28, 2015. However, the Defendant issued a corrective order on the ground that: (a) posted F in the website of the child care center and the original DNA data of parents as the president and reported F to the president, thereby falsely reporting the appointment and dismissal of the office staff F; (b) on February 22, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order on the ground that the child care center in this case was operated as the school bus in G from July 8, 2015 to September 13, 2015 after the opening of the school.

C. At the time of March 18, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of the suspension of the operation of a child care center for March 5, 2016 on the ground that “A failure to report the operation of a G vehicle, such as the order of correction issued as of February 22, 2016, was reported to the competent police station on February 1, 2016, and, on January 28, 2016, the Defendant reported the appointment and dismissal of the president E and office F as of January 28, 2016, but did not report the appointment and dismissal of the Plaintiff E and office F as of February 1, 2016.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. Although the representative of a child care center asserted by the plaintiffs tried to employ F as the president, he/she did not employ E as the president due to F’s circumstances and did not appoint E as the president, and reported appointment and dismissal in conformity with the factual relations. The website and original DNA data did not reflect the aforementioned circumstances, and were merely erroneous in F as the president, and thus, the corrective order issued on January 28, 2016 was unlawful.

G Vehicles shall be dated 2013.