1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From April 1991, the Plaintiff operates C Child Care Center located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-si, Seo-gu, and from March 1993, E Child Care Center located in Seo-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, and F (G) who is the representative director and founder of the Plaintiff was employed as C Child Care Center on December 31, 2001 and was dismissed on February 28, 201, and was appointed as the president of E Child Care Center on March 1, 2013.

B. Under Article 36 of the Infant Care Act and Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Defendant paid a certain subsidy to the Plaintiff as personnel expenses of F, based on the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s guidelines (hereinafter “the 2013 Social Welfare Facility Management Guidance”; hereinafter “the 2013 Guidelines”), stating that “The Defendant shall grant personnel expenses to the head of the facility by the age of 65, but shall support personnel expenses by the age of 70 to the head of the facility who is a lineal family member of the founder and the founder, who had been employed before December 31, 201, who is a lineal family member of the founder and the founder, who had been employed before and after January 1, 202, would not be subject to postponement of employment expenses.” As long as the F was newly employed at the E child care center following the dismissal from the head of the C child care center on January 1, 2002, the Defendant suspended the F’s personnel expenses for reasons that it is no longer subject to personnel expenses.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant should subsidize personnel expenses for F until February 16, 2017, when the plaintiff's founder and the head of the child care center operated by the plaintiff pursuant to Article 36 of the Infant Care Act, Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the Infant Care Act, and the guidelines of this case. Since F's change from the president of the C child care center operated by the plaintiff to the president of the E child care center does not constitute "new employment", it does not constitute "new employment."