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 issues of this case and the judgment of the court of first instance

A. On June 10, 2014, the key issue of the instant case: (a) revoked the establishment permission of a social welfare foundation pursuant to Article 26(1)11 of the Social Welfare Services Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Articles 23 and 28 of the said Act; and (b) ordered the appointment of a liquidator pursuant to Articles 77 through 94 of the Civil Act to perform the corporate dissolution and liquidation procedures (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The key issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff has any ground under Article 26(1)11 of the Social Welfare Services Act, and whether the instant disposition was an unlawful act of deviating from and abusing discretion.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, the court of first instance held that the instant disposition was lawful on the grounds that the Defendant’s grounds for the instant disposition correspond to all factual relations, and thus constitutes “other cases violating this Act, an order under this Act, or the articles of incorporation under this Act” under Article 26(1)11 of the Social Welfare Services Act, and also constitutes “cases where a corporation is unable to achieve the supervisory purpose by any other means or fails to comply with a corrective order within six months” under Article 26(2) of the same Act, and on the grounds that there is no other evidence to deem that the instant disposition was unlawful and abused from discretionary power.

① The Plaintiff is a social welfare foundation that has been established for the purpose of establishing and operating medical care centers for the disabled pursuant to the Social Welfare Services Act and receives considerable subsidies from the administrative authority.

Therefore, the accounting operation and fund expenditure should be executed more transparently than any other organization, and if the representative of social welfare foundation or his employee embezzleds the corporation's funds, it is necessary for the administrative agency to exercise the right of supervision and supervision over the corporation more strictly, since the people's blood is used for private purposes.

(2)