1. On February 21, 2013, the order issued by the Defendant to return subsidies to a lifelong educational establishment with academic background recognized by the Plaintiff is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 200, the Plaintiff is the principal of the middle and high school, which was authorized as a lifelong educational establishment with academic background under the Lifelong Education Act (hereinafter “school in this case”), and whose name is changed to B/high school around September 1997, which was authorized as a social educational establishment with academic background under the Social Education Act, and around March 2000, it is the principal of the school in the middle and high school (hereinafter “school in this case”).

B. From 2005 to 2010, the Plaintiff applied for a subsidy for personnel expenses for the instant school, which is a recognized lifelong educational establishment, to the Defendant and received the total amount of KRW 1,255,635,330 from the Defendant over 51 times.

C. On October 18, 2012, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a three-year suspension of execution by imprisonment with prison labor for the crime that he/she received a total of KRW 1,25,635,30 from the Defendant during the period from April 4, 2005 to March 12, 2010, and was sentenced to a five-year suspension of execution by imprisonment with prison labor for the following reasons: (a) even if the number of teachers of the instant school falls short of the standards for recognition of lifelong educational facilities; (b) as the number of teachers of the instant school falls short of the standards for recognition of lifelong educational facilities; and (c) as such, he/she applied for a subsidy application for personnel expenses for school personnel expenses by stating it as if he/she had worked at the said

On February 21, 2013, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to return KRW 1,255,635,330 to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is the minimum number of teachers under the law of the school of this case, but does not require that the law be full-time.

At the time of applying for subsidies, 18 teachers were actually working for the instant school, including full-time teachers and volunteer professors, and on the other hand, some volunteer teachers were not listed as teachers due to tax issues, and retired teachers were not listed as teachers.