1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the representative and the president of the C Child Care Center, which is a private child care center in the Gu-si B (hereinafter “instant child care center”).

If a subsidy is granted by fraud or other improper means, the director A of C Child Care Center shall be dismissed on March 2, 2017 (the retirement date: February 28, 2017) after the month when he/she had a DNA course assistant teacher who did not work from January 31, 2017, and shall receive 811,000 won of the remuneration for the part-time course assistant teacher on February 2017.

B. On March 7, 2017, the Defendant reported that the illegal receipt of subsidies is doubtful, and conducted a visit and inspection on the instant childcare center on March 7, 2017, following the prior notice of the disposition and hearing procedures, and issued an order to return KRW 81,00,00 pursuant to Articles 40 subparag. 3, 45(1)1, and 45-2(1) and 46 subparag. 4 of the Infant Care Act on the grounds of the following violations to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Defendant issued an order to return KRW 81,00,000, a penalty surcharge of KRW 7,560,000, and a disposition to suspend the qualification of the president for one month (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition should be revoked on the following grounds.

1) On January 26, 2017, D, an assistant teacher of the child care center of this case, expressed his/her intention of resignation verbally for the mother’s nursing on January 26, 2017. However, the Plaintiff, instead of consenting to D’s immediate resignation, dealt with D’s nursing at the prompt time when D’s child care conditions change, instead of consenting to D’s immediate resignation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff would have continued a labor relationship between the Plaintiff and D, and anticipated D’s return within several days, and received it on February 25, 2017, and thus, it does not constitute a case where D received subsidies by fraud or other improper means. 2).