1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Case history

A. Pursuant to Article 12 of the Infant Care Act, the Defendant is a local government that establishes and operates a national or public B childcare center in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant childcare center”).

B. On January 1, 2014, the Plaintiff (formerly named Association D) entered into an agreement with the Defendant to be entrusted with the operation of the instant childcare center by December 31, 2018 from the same date, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”). C.

On November 25, 2015, the Defendant paid personnel expenses to the Plaintiff as a government childcare center for personnel expenses, as prescribed by relevant statutes. In the case of the head of a kindergarten, by applying mutatis mutandis the recommendation for the retirement age system for workers in the guidance for management of social welfare facilities, the Defendant shall suspend the provision of personnel expenses if the head of a kindergarten continues to work in excess of the payment age by the age of 65. As the child care center’s age is expected to reach 65 years of age, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to take necessary measures, such as replacement of the head.

On December 7, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the purport that he will not replace the childcare center by the expiration date of the period of entrustment, since E, the head of the childcare center of this case, has expertise in performing a long-term childcare center principal.

E. On May 13, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the request for replacement of the head of the instant childcare center violates Article 20(1) of the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Infant Care Ordinance, and thus, constitutes grounds for cancellation and termination of entrustment pursuant to Article 25 of the Enforcement Rule of the Infant Care Act, Article 22 of the aforementioned Ordinance, and Article 12 of the instant Arrangement, and demanded the replacement of the head of the instant childcare center by May 20, 2016.

However, on May 20, 2016, the Plaintiff responded to the purport that the Defendant cannot comply with the above demands.

F. The Defendant’s termination of the instant agreement on June 9, 2016.