beta
Text
1. On March 31, 2014, the Defendant’s disposition of ordering the return of a subsidy of KRW 15.4 million against the Plaintiff is revoked.
2...
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff established and operated a “B childcare center” (hereinafter “instant childcare center”) which is a private childcare center designated as a “B childcare center” (hereinafter “instant childcare center”) in Namyang-si, Nam-si, and a “106-dong 106-dong 106-dong 106-dong 106-dong 106.
B. Where the State or local governments separately employ extended childcare teachers in providing support for extended childcare facilities in accordance with the “child care program guidance”, which is the guidance of the Minister of Health and Welfare under Article 36 of the Infant Care Act, Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the Infant Care Act, Article 28 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the State or local governments shall provide them with personnel expenses, such as monthly salary, but the working hours of extended childcare teachers shall be determined within the scope of 6 to 8 hours, including the total working hours from 19:30 to 21:30.
C. However, around October 2012, the Plaintiff registered D, which is the husband of the Plaintiff, who operated beauty materials sales business atHanam-si, as a part-time extension childcare teacher of the instant childcare center, as the day-time extension childcare teacher of the instant childcare center, and was granted from the Defendant the cost of managing the day-time extension childcare teacher and the cost of improving teacher treatment from October 1 to August 31, 2012.
The Defendant issued an order to return subsidies of KRW 15.4 million to the Plaintiff on March 31, 2014 (hereinafter “instant order to return”), the order to close the child care center of this case (hereinafter “instant order to close”) from October 1, 2012 to August 31, 2013, and the order to suspend the qualification of each of the instant cases (hereinafter “instant order to suspend the qualification”) for the reason that the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 1,5.4 million subsidies for KRW 1,5.4 million per month in relation to D with which the Plaintiff did not work for childcare for a normal time extension from October 1, 2012 to August 31, 2013 (i.e., the extended labor cost of KRW 1.2 million) (i., the extended labor cost of KRW 1.2 million) and the suspension of the qualification of the Director from August 1, 2014 to July 31, 2015).