beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the lower judgment and the supplementary judgment, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
On November 3, 2013, Plaintiff 19 of the judgment of the first instance court, “The Plaintiff 1,00,000 won, etc., was indicted on March 31, 2014 and sentenced to a fine of KRW 1,00,000 (Seoul High Court 2014 Goyang Branch 1239), etc., as the facts charged that Plaintiff 2 served as the principal of the child care center of this case on November 3, 2013, and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1,00,000, etc.” (the Defendant 2015, Nov. 3, 2013, 2014). The Plaintiff 200 of the judgment of the first instance court, “The Plaintiff 1,00,000 won, who was indicted on March 31, 2014 and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1,000 on September 18, 2015.”
2. Supplementary judgment
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the first instance court and the circumstances cited by the first instance court, even when the suspension of the principal’s qualification was imposed, the Plaintiff A performed the principal’s duties of the child-care center of this case from November 1, 2013 to December 9 of the same year during the suspension period of qualification, and the Plaintiff B, using the Plaintiff’s name, acknowledged that the Plaintiff A had the Plaintiff conduct the principal’s duties of the child-care center of this case.
① The Plaintiffs asserted that Plaintiff A was merely assisting the Plaintiff A in certain affairs to transfer and take over the president’s services.
However, even if there was a part of the purpose for the transfer system, it cannot be viewed that the fact that the plaintiff A performed the president's duties during the period of suspension of the president's qualification.