1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Article 30(5) of the former Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 15892, Dec. 11, 2018; hereinafter “former Infant Care Act”) provides the grounds for revoking the evaluation certification based on the act of a person who establishes and operates a childcare center, Article 32-2 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Infant Care Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 631, Jun. 12, 2019; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule of the Infant Care Act”) provides that the evaluation certification may be revoked with respect to the act of a person who establishes and operates a childcare center, other than the representative of a childcare center, and the revocation of the evaluation certification is uniformly expected even if the person who manages and manages the childcare center, which is the grounds for the instant disposition, is in violation of the principle of statutory reservation by deviating from the scope of delegation, and is unconstitutional as a provision contrary to the principle of self-responsibility and the principle of proportionality.

B. Unless it is a deviation or abuse of discretionary power, the Plaintiff fulfilled the duty of supervision and supervision over child abuse of childcare teachers D. In light of the fact that the operation of childcare centers is poor due to the suspension of the payment of subsidies to childcare centers operated by the Plaintiff due to the instant disposition, the workplace of childcare teachers is dead, and parents are faced with serious child care environment crisis, and the revised Infant Care Act and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide for the assessment grade adjustment, not the cancellation of the evaluation certification, in the reflective consideration of the unconstitutionality of infant care teachers in the event of the disposition due to the act of infant care teachers. In light of the above, since the instant disposition causes a significant imbalance between the Plaintiff’s right to obtain certain skills owned by the Plaintiff and the public interest to be achieved thereby, the instant disposition is discretionary.