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 operating a “C Child Care Center” (hereinafter “instant Child Care Center”) which is a private child care center under the Infant Care Act in Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun.

B. On January 1, 2016, the instant childcare center was designated as a public childcare center from the Defendant.

C. On June 22, 2017, the report was accepted that “the Plaintiff’s children only operate a vehicle, but did not perform their duties as a teacher for the use of a child care center, but are receiving the enjoying allowance and social allowances, and the instant child care center’s day care teacher is only three, and the documents are written with four persons.”

Accordingly, on July 7, 2017, Gangwon-do and Hongcheon-gun confirmed that D, as the result of the inspection of the child-care center of this case on July 7, 2017, only operated the driver's vehicle from January 2017 to July 2017, but did not perform his duties as a teacher in charge.

E. Accordingly, on July 31, 2017 and December 1, 2017, the head of Hongcheon-gun ordered the Plaintiff to return 8.22 million won (i.e., the total of the subsidies paid in relation to D (i., the total of 4.75 million operating expenses for public childcare centers (i.e., the total of 4., 75 million operating expenses for teachers in private childcare centers at KRW 3,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000) for the improvement of treatment

F. On September 13, 2017, the head of Hongcheon Gun: (a) imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 820,000 in lieu of the suspension of operation of a nursery under Article 45 of the Infant Care Act, Article 38 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (20,70,000), Article 46 of the Infant Care Act, and Article 39 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act; and (b) imposed a suspension of qualification for the head of a nursery school for six months under Article 51 of the Infant Care Act and Article 26(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on the ground that “the Plaintiff appointed or received a false nursery teacher (violation of the preceding provision).”