1. The Defendant’s order of return of KRW 86,726,350, which was granted to the Plaintiffs on December 16, 2013 exceeds KRW 67,797,230, among the disposition of ordering return of KRW 86,726,350.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs, as married couple, are co-representatives of the D Child Care Center C in Changwon-si, Changwon-si.

Plaintiff

A was in office as the former president of the D Child Care Center, and the plaintiff B is in office as the current president.

B. On June 2013, the Plaintiffs were found to have violated the following provisions as a result of the on-site audit of D childcare centers conducted by the Board of Audit and Inspection.

Accordingly, on December 4, 2013, the Defendant issued a prior notification to the Plaintiffs on December 4, 2013, and issued an order to return the subsidy amounting to KRW 86,726,350 on December 16, 2013 on the ground that the Defendant received the subsidy by fraud or other improper means (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On January 14, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of the prior disposition, and received written written opinions from the Plaintiff on January 24, 2014, and issued a disposition on February 25, 2014 to the Plaintiffs for the closure of child care centers facilities and the suspension of qualification for the principals of child care centers for three months.

E G DDD Ha F HI

D. On the other hand, on January 17, 2012, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge in lieu of three months for the suspension of operation of a child care center on the ground that the Plaintiff received personnel expenses and various allowances paid to the child care teachers by false registration of the D child care teachers in the course of operating the D child care center.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition asserted by the Plaintiffs is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) Of KRW 86,726,350 which the Defendant ordered the Plaintiffs to return through the instant disposition, KRW 9,040,00 for infant care teachers’ benefits are subsidies, but the amount of KRW 25,728,740 paid from the income of infant care fees and KRW 51,957,610 for basic infant care fees does not constitute subsidies. However, the Defendant issued the instant disposition ordering the return of subsidies on the premise that the aforementioned amount of KRW 25,728,740 for childcare fees and KRW 51,957,610 for basic infant care fees constituted subsidies. 2) Infant care teachers.