1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the president of the building B and D (hereinafter “child-care center in this case”) in Si interest city, and E (hereinafter “victimed child”) is the child of 3 years of age who was under childcare at the child-care center in this case.

B. On October 17, 2018, on the ground that the child care center of this case was not divingd at low diving hours, the Plaintiff entered a ward with the knowledge of the child, thereby asking the right part of the child to the right part of the ward once (hereinafter “instant act”). The Plaintiff left the country as soon as possible after asking the right part of the child (hereinafter “instant act”).

C. The child victim’s friendship reported child abuse to a specialized child protection agency for economic promotion on the same day, and the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the investigation agency.

The Gyeonggi City Specialized Child Protection Agency determined on October 19, 2018 to the 25th day of the same month that “child abuse is suspected (physical abuse)” under Article 17 subparag. 3 of the Child Welfare Act on December 27, 2018.

On March 25, 2019, the head of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office in the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office recognized the crime of violation of the Child Welfare Act (child abuse), and suspended indictment on the grounds that any contingent occurrence occurred, the Plaintiff immediately taken treatment measures for victimized children, the degree of injury is relatively small, and the victim does not want punishment.

On March 22, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspending qualification for the president of 45 days mitigated from 3 months to 1/2 pursuant to Article 46 subparagraph 1 (d) of the Infant Care Act and Article 39 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground that the Plaintiff, the head of a child care center, caused the Plaintiff’s damage to an infant intentionally or by gross negligence during his/her duties.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On March 22, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on August 5, 2019.

[Grounds for Recognition] contain facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 to 6, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3.