logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.04.24 2018구단8690
1,725,000원 과징금 처분(운영정지 15일에
Text

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing the penalty surcharge of KRW 1,725,00 against the Plaintiff on August 21, 2018 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 26, 2016, the Defendant: (a) applied Article 44 Subparag. 4 of the Infant Care Act to the Plaintiff operating the “C Child Care Center” in Mapo-gu, Ansan-si; (b) applying Article 44 Subparag. 4 of the Infant Care Act to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 24(1) of the Infant Care Act by using an account deposit or credit card in the name of a child care center in combination with an individual card

2. thoroughly observing the financial accounting rules of child-care centers;

3. He/she shall thoroughly operate a child care center in the future and issued a corrective order (hereinafter “instant corrective order”). B. The Defendant has used the Plaintiff’s personal card of KRW 1,787,110 in spending the C child care center from January 2017 to February 2018, and thus has violated subparagraph 2 (f) of attached Table 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the Infant Care Act (Article 23, subparagraph 2 (f) of the Infant Care Act) and constitutes a first violation of the instant corrective order on August 21, 2018; Article 45(1)3 of the Infant Care Act; Article 38(1)2 (f) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act; Article 38(1)2 (c) and (1) of the same Act; Article 45-2 (1) of the same Act; Article 25-3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; and Article 25-13 (f) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter “the instant corrective order”).

A. [In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2-1, 2, 3, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant corrective order was that the Plaintiff would not use the physical card and make C child care center credit cards to pay the child care center expenses. The Plaintiff made C child care center credit card accordingly, and thus, did not violate the instant corrective order.

arrow