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 representative of the “C Child Care Center” located in the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B Apartment Complex (hereinafter “instant Child Care Center”), and D is the principal of the Child Care Center.

The plaintiff has obtained the official approval of the Seoul Child Care Center for the child care center of this case from the defendant and received subsidies as a support measure.

B. Meanwhile, the term “child care service guidance for the year 2013” issued by the Defendant (hereinafter “child care service guidance for the year 2013”) refers to the grounds for revocation of the official approval of the Seoul Child Care Center: (i) where the head of the child care center is suspended under Article 46 of the Infant Care Act after official approval; and (ii) where the Defendant considers it inappropriate for him to maintain the official approval

In addition, the Child Care Business Guidance in 2013 provides that subsidies shall be suspended from the following month of the month in which the grounds for revocation of the official approval occur and the subsidies which have been unjustly paid shall be recovered.

C. On August 12, 2013, the head of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government issued a disposition of suspending qualification under Article 46 subparagraph 1 of the former Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 10789, Jun. 7, 2011; hereinafter “former Infant Care Act”) and Article 39 (2) [Attachment Table 10] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Infant Care Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 92, Dec. 8, 201; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule of the Infant Care Act”) to D on the ground that “D, in collusion with the Plaintiff, received rebates 28,243,50 won from E, a special activity education company, for 23 occasions from March 2010 to December 2011, thereby causing damage to D’s intentional or gross negligence in the course of performing its duties.”

① The Defendant is subject to a disposition suspending the president’s qualification as above (hereinafter referred to as “reasons for disposition 1”)

hereinafter referred to as “reason 2”.