logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.05.24 2016구합20199
사업정지 등 처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person operating a regional child center of Daegu Northern-gu B and 3 from December 15, 2010, “C” (hereinafter “C”).

Where subsidies have been granted by fraudulent or other illegal means concerning the details of dispositions based on the violation of Acts and subordinate statutes - Concurrent offices and full-time obligations for the head of a facility (D Operation: D Operation: December 26, 2012 - November 12, 2015) - False settlement report - Books (170,000 won) October 31, 2014 - Books (260,000 won) December 31, 2014 - Social Welfare Services Act (260,000 won) on April 30, 2015; Social Welfare Services Act Article 35 (1) of the Infantian (2.60,000 won); Child Welfare Act Article 61, and Article 56 (1) 5 of the Child Welfare Act (Labor cost: 52,854,670 won: Total operating expenses of 650,000 won: 53,504,670 won: 206. 16. 4.206. 16.

B. On September 30, 2015 and November 13, 2011 of the same year, the Defendant issued an order to inspect the facilities of the instant center on two occasions, and on December 28, 2015, the Plaintiff issued an order to return KRW 53,504,670 (the Plaintiff’s personnel expenses, the head of the violating facility) to the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff violated the purpose of using the support fund by receiving subsidies by false or other unlawful means (II) as follows: (a) Articles 35(1) and 40(1)4 of the Social Welfare Services Act; (b) Articles 56(1)5 and 61 of the Child Welfare Act; and (c) Articles 56(1)5 and 61 of the Child Welfare Act.

(hereinafter “the original disposition of this case”). (c)

On February 22, 2016, the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission changed the original disposition in this case to a return order of KRW 26,752,330, and the replacement disposition of the head of the facility was revoked.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). 【The ground for recognition】 the fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s Nos. 1 and 5 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and Eul.

arrow