The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is identical to the statement of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance other than the following, thus citing this case in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 15th (2,3 months) of the first instance judgment "(2,3 months)" was found to be "(2,3, and 4 months)" and "the 15th (2,3 months) of the first instance judgment added the following parts to "the 15th (15th) of the first instance judgment." Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that F and G, a social welfare worker, were not in charge of the pertinent education center because the pertinent education center had worked as an administrative staff. However, it is insufficient to reverse the determination of the above facts solely on the ground that the statement of Nos. 9, 10, 23, and 26 of the first instance judgment was insufficient, the Plaintiff's above assertion is dismissed as follows. Since the 17th (5) through 13th (13) of the first instance judgment, the Plaintiff, at the instant facility in 2017, claimed that "the 15th (3) hours of the instant G education center should be added to the working hours of the instant case, and thus, the amount should be deducted to the 3th (1) working hours of G.

On the other hand, Article 51(3) of the instant notice provides that “The value may be calculated by dividing the working hours of employees engaged in the same occupational category who do not meet the monthly working hours by the number of employees engaged in the same occupational category as the monthly working hours,” and according to the purport of the evidence No. 1, No. 1, and No. 14 and the entire arguments, F and G, a social worker, during the instant recovery disposition, meet the monthly working hours.