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, an educational foundation under the Private School Act established on December 12, 1964, established and operated C High School in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant school”).

B. On December 15, 2010, the Defendant issued a disposition against the Plaintiff to return KRW 186,129,950 (hereinafter “instant subsidy”) from March 1, 2008 to November 28, 2010, pursuant to Article 9(2)6 and 7 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Financial Support for Private Schools (hereinafter “instant Ordinance”), on the ground that “the Plaintiff was provided with the personnel expenses of the principal D who was not eligible for appointment without obtaining the appointment approval, as a subsidy for financial deficiencies.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The non-existence of the supply and demand of the subsidy of this case did not directly support the principal of the school of this case pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the Ordinance of this case and did not support the plaintiff as an agency eligible for support, and therefore the plaintiff does not have a duty to return the subsidy of this case. 2) The plaintiff violating the principle of good faith and trust protection principle was appointed as the principal of the school with the consent of not less than 2/3 of directors, and reported this to the defendant after the appointment of D with the consent of not less than 2/3 of the director, and at that time, the plaintiff president and D reported that they were women relations. Thus, the defendant did not raise any problem even if he received a large number of reports made by the principal in the process of exchanging the school of this case with the school of this case,

3. The defendant who has abused discretion shall decide to pay the subsidy even though he/she was aware of the fact that D was a woman of the president.