2015 old-old 807 Suspension of Business

A

Kim Sea Market

January 12, 2016

February 16, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's disposition of business suspension for six months against the plaintiff on May 13, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is the head of the "C regional children's center" (hereinafter referred to as the "regional children's center of this case") with a maximum of 29 persons in Kimhae-si B.

B. On May 13, 2015, the Defendant: (a) falsely handled the attendance card held by the instant regional child centers; (b) received 12,19,500 won of the subsidy related to meal cost by falsely registering a child who does not use the instant regional center at all; (c) denied 12,19,500 won of the subsidy related to meal cost; (b) received 651,300 won of the relevant subsidy from October 2014 to December 30 of the same year; and (c) received the payment of the labor cost paid from the employees of the instant regional child centers; (d) received 110,000 won of the subsidy to use the instant regional child centers at around October 25, 2014; and (d) received 10,000 won of the subsidy for the purpose of returning the subsidy to the Defendant without being able to return it under the revised 16th 6th 6th th 20 th 10th 6th son of the Child Welfare Act.

D. Accordingly, on September 22, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition suspending business for six months (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 56(1)5 of the Child Welfare Act with respect to the instant violation to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Although it was true that the Plaintiff received subsidies related to meal cost-related subsidies, it is against the mind that the Plaintiff made an erroneous judgment prior to granting subsidies to the children using the instant regional child center so that they can be used in a private teaching institute in connection with the center. In reality, it was difficult to seek eight-hour full-time employees at the instant regional child center located in the outer area, and thus, it was difficult to employ them under the condition that they will work for six hours and three million minutes. This was also for the operation of the instant regional child center. The supply of subsidies related to the operation of the Saturday program is due to simple error that occurred in the course of accounting processing. The Plaintiff’s subsidies that the Plaintiff received and received were fully returned.

2) Where the meal service is not provided according to the meal table, it is based on the children’s preference, and the food materials purchased by the change are not used for private use, but used for the meal service. Some of them have been borne by children as part of their participation fees, etc. However, they are merely small amounts of money and rather have diverse experiences for children by using supporting organizations.

3) Furthermore, if the instant regional child center suspends its business, there is no other child welfare facility in the area Kimhae-si D, and there is no other child welfare facility in the relevant area, so children in the relevant area will suffer a big inconvenience and are more likely to be exposed to dangerous situations.

4) In full view of these circumstances, the instant disposition is an excessively harsh disposition that did not consider the Plaintiff’s disadvantage at all, as well as a serious disadvantage to children using the instant regional child center, and thus is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion. Therefore, the instant disposition ought to be mitigated to order a short period of time for not more than three months to suspend business.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the respective descriptions of Gap's evidence Nos. 5 through 15 (including partial number of heading, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 25, and the purport of the entire pleadings, it cannot be said that the purpose of the public interest to be achieved due to the instant disposition is less than the disadvantage that the plaintiff would suffer due to the instant disposition. Therefore, there is no violation of law that deviates from or abused the discretionary authority.

(1) The act of receiving subsidies by improper means from the State in the area of social welfare is highly likely to seriously undermine the reliability and fairness of the social welfare system and ultimately cause serious damage to many citizens by worsening the state’s welfare finance, and thus, it is necessary for public interest to strictly regulate such subsidies.

The amount of subsidies illegally received by the Plaintiff through false reporting, etc. is not much than KRW 12,960,80 for about 13 months (the fact that the Plaintiff received subsidies related to the use of rental buses on October 25, 2014 is also recognized). In particular, the Plaintiff received subsidies related to meal cost-related KRW 5,256,00 by similar means in around 201.

③ The instant disposition is deemed to comply with the administrative disposition standards prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Child Welfare Act, and there is no special reason to deem that it is considerably unfair in light of the instant violation and the details and purport of relevant

④ Even after the suspension of business of the regional children’s centers in this case, the Defendant has prepared relevant measures so that children can suffer from their care by individually listening to the opinions of their protectors, using the after-school care system for children, providing children’s meal service stores to neighboring local children’s centers, etc.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Maximum number of questions