1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the president who operates a private child-care center that has obtained authorization for child-care facilities (hereinafter “instant child-care center”) under the trade name of “C child-care center” in both weeks.

B. On November 10, 2015, the Defendant issued an order to return KRW 3,040,00 to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 45(1)1 of the former Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 1321, May 18, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the ground that “The Plaintiff falsely registered D as an assistant teacher for the course of enjoying D even though the Plaintiff had D serve as an English teacher for the entire child care center of the instant case, and received KRW 3,040,00 from May 1, 2015 to August 31, 2016, each disposition issued against the Plaintiff each of the following dispositions: (i) the Plaintiff violated Article 45(1)1 of the former Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 13321, May 18, 2015; ii).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal. On April 18, 2016, the Defendant added the following grounds to the Plaintiff: (a) the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 20,700,000 in lieu of the Plaintiff; (b) the period of qualification suspension to the period from May 9, 2016 to November 8, 2016; (c) the Plaintiff violated Article 45(1)3 of the former Infant Care Act by failing to report the matters concerning the appointment and dismissal of childcare teachers and staff or filing a corrective order under Article 44 of the Infant Care Act by failing to report the appointment and dismissal of E even if he/she received a corrective order under Article 44 of the Infant Care Act by failing to report the appointment and dismissal of E (hereinafter referred to as “reasons 2 disposition”).

(hereinafter not modified) ① Order to return subsidies and modified penalty surcharges; ② Imposition of penalty surcharges and disposition to suspend qualification (hereinafter “instant disposition”); [Grounds for recognition”); Party A’s evidence Nos. 9; Party B’s statement Nos. 7, 8, and 10; and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 No. 1 that the non-existence of the grounds for the disposition D is proceeding with English lessons of the child care center of this case.