1. The Defendant’s disposition of suspending the operation of a child-care center on June 1, 2015 is revoked for one month.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the head of a child-care center that operates the C Child-Care Center in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City B apartment.

B. On May 8, 2013, the Seoul Yangyang Police Station notified the Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City of the fact that the Plaintiff was prosecuted on the ground that the Plaintiff was refunded KRW 5,126,000 of the special childcare center activity expenses from April 2010 to February 201, as the result of the rebates investigation of childcare center special childcare center activity expenses, and the Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City requested the Defendant to take an administrative disposition against the Plaintiff on the same day.

C. The Defendant sent to the Plaintiff on March 9, 2015.

Based on the facts stated in the foregoing paragraph, the president suspension two-month disposition and the disposition ordering the total return of KRW 5,126,000 to the parents of children (hereinafter “instant return order disposition”), and the said two dispositions together (hereinafter “prior disposition”). D.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the preceding disposition with the Incheon District Court (Seoul District Court 2015Guhap51242) and filed an application for the suspension of execution. However, on April 15, 2015, the above court dismissed the application for the suspension of execution on the disposition of return of special activity expenses while suspending the execution.

E. Accordingly, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to refund the special activity expenses equivalent to the rebates to the children’s parents by April 30, 2015, but the Plaintiff did not refund the special activity expenses.

On June 1, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition suspending the operation of a child care center for one month (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the corrective order (the instant return order) following the violation of the Infant Care Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is KRW 5,126,00,000, out of the money paid as the special activity expenses for child-care centers.