logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.08.13 2015구합10636
어린이집 원장 자격정지 처분 등 취소청구
Text

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

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, etc. is the founder and operator of the C Child Care Center located in Gwangju Dong-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter “instant Child Care Center”), who is working as the president of the instant Child Care Center, and D is a child care teacher who served in the instant Child Care Center from around 1996 to the date.

B. From March 1, 2014, the Plaintiff registered D as a teacher in charge of two parallels of the instant childcare center from March 1, 2014, and received a total of KRW 25,205,040 from March 1, 2014 to December 2014, including personnel expenses subsidies and various allowances for D as subsidies from the Defendant.

C. On January 14, 2015, the Defendant issued a false registration of D as a teacher who actually performs his/her duties and received guidance and check-up, and then ordered the Plaintiff to suspend the Plaintiff’s qualification as the head of the childcare center (hereinafter “instant return disposition”) and suspend the Plaintiff’s qualification for one year (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff registered D as a teacher in charge of two parallel classes from March 1, 2014 to January 14, 2015, and received KRW 25,205,040 in total of the subsidies for personnel expenses and various kinds of allowances” from March 14, 2015 to January 14, 2015 to “the Plaintiff received KRW 25,205,040 in total of the subsidies for personnel expenses and various allowances.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including number ; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness D's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

A. The child care center of this case, where the Plaintiff’s ground for disposition 1 did not exist, is comprised of eight half of the total number of the child care centers, and the child care was provided under the responsibility of each school teacher. D worked as a school teacher of two parallel parallel classes, and around March 3, 2014.

arrow