1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in Paragraph 2 below, and as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of “the additional judgment of the court of second instance” under Paragraph 3 below, since it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article

2.The following shall be added between the fifth and tenth of the judgment of the first instance.

1) According to Article 17(1)1 of the former Local Finance Act (amended by Act No. 11900, Jul. 16, 2013) (amended by Act No. 11900, Jul. 16, 2013), a local government may grant subsidies to individuals or organizations where any provision exists in the law related to the affairs under the jurisdiction of a local self-government organization. Pursuant to Article 13(2) of the former Act on the Support of Female Farmers and Fishermen (amended by Act No. 12439, Mar. 18, 2014), a local government may fully or partially subsidize expenses incurred in operating facilities related to female farmers and fishermen established and operated by bodies

According to Article 29 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act, matters necessary for the application, decision to grant or use of subsidies from local governments shall be prescribed by ordinances of local governments.

According to Article 17 of the Ordinance of this case, the Mayor may suspend the grant of a subsidy if the subsidy recipient is deemed to have violated the statutes or the conditions of subsidy.

''

3. Matters for further determination of the second instance;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that most of the operation of the center of this case is related to the operation of the child care center of this case, even if family D was prohibited from performing the duties of the center of this case, it was mostly assisting the center’s duties while performing the duties of the head of the child care center of this case, and the Plaintiff’s Infant Care Act relating to this case.