beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is an entrusted operator of a Gu Child Care Center established by the Defendant based on the Infant Care Act (hereinafter “instant Child Care Center”).
B. On August 2, 2017, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City conducted guidance and inspection on the childcare center of this case, and notified the Defendant of the violation, such as receipt of subsidies for childcare helpers’ personnel expenses, as if the childcare center of this case did not work for the period from July 2, 2014 to August 2, 2017, and requested an administrative disposition against the Plaintiff.
Accordingly, on September 21, 2017, the Defendant applied for and received false subsidies for personnel expenses for infant care helpers, ② omitted the appointment and dismissal of infant care helpers and home care helpers, ③ omitted the operation hours per day of the course, monthly infant care program, revenue settlement statement, and meal table, ④ failed to comply with the safety management standards due to the omission of accident report and the establishment of a mother care center.
Article 46 of the Infant Care Act Article 44 of the Infant Care Act, which provides that an order for improper correction of appointment and dismissal of the Plaintiff childcare staff under Article 44 of the Infant Care Act (Article 67 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse of Child and Juveniles from Child Care Information of KRW 1,50,000, which is subject to the disposition of the violation, shall not be issued to the person subject to the disposition, to comply with the
C. On September 27, 2017, the Plaintiff and D filed an appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission. On April 9, 2018, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request to revoke the disposition of imposition of an administrative fine, revoked the suspension of the president’s qualification against D, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s request to revoke the corrective order.
In the instant case, the Plaintiff asserted against the Plaintiff.