1.(a)

The Defendant’s penalty surcharge of KRW 30,00,000 in lieu of six months of the suspension of operation of a child care center to Plaintiff A on August 6, 2018.

1. Grounds for dispositions against the plaintiffs

A. On July 4, 2017, the Plaintiff C, a child care teacher of the E Child Care Center located in Gwangju City (hereinafter “Child Care Center”) located in the E (hereinafter “instant Child Care Center”), was able to correct the attitude of FJ children G (hereinafter “victims”) in the bruptic brupt of the body of the victimized child, and was dried up on the side of the classroom, when the FJ children G (hereinafter “victims”) did not properly drink boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom 3, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as "the act committed by the plaintiff C is called the abuse of this case). (b)

Plaintiff

C On March 14, 2018, the above decision was confirmed on the crime of violation of the Child Welfare Act that committed physical abuse that may harm the physical health and development of a child.

C. On August 6, 2018, Plaintiff C was subject to a protective disposition due to child abuse, and the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 30 million in lieu of six months of the suspension of the operation of a child care center on the ground of “child abuse” pursuant to Articles 45 and 45-2 of the Infant Care Act on the representative of the child care center in this case, and ② the head of the above child care center Plaintiff B, on the ground of “child abuse inflicted a loss on an infant due to child abuse,” the suspension of qualification for three months (from September 1, 2018 to November 30, 2018) pursuant to Article 46 subparagraph 1 (d) of the Infant Care Act; and ③ the suspension of qualifications for infant care teachers due to the same cause pursuant to Article 47 subparagraph 1 of the Infant Care Act (from September 1, 2018 to October 31, 2018).

The relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as shown in the attached Form.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2 to 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each disposition against the plaintiff A and B is legitimate

A. As the substantial representative of the child-care center of this case alleged by Plaintiff A and B, Plaintiff B, the president of the child-care center of this case, is reasonable to prevent child abuse.