1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s disposition of replacing the Plaintiff on January 19, 2015 shall be revoked.

Details of the disposition

On January 6, 2014, the Defendant issued an improvement order (the first) pursuant to Article 40 of the Social Welfare Services Act and Article 26-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act to the Plaintiff, who is the head of the facility “C” (the facility of this case is not a corporation; hereinafter referred to as “instant facility”), which is a welfare facility for the disabled at the Namyang-si, as well as the head of the facility of the facility of this case (the facility of this case), as the ground for disposition.

The Defendant, the head of the instant facility, on January 19, 2015, ordered the Plaintiff, the head of the instant facility, to submit data in accordance with Article 40 of the Social Welfare Services Act and Article 26-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, on the ground that “The Plaintiff, the head of the instant facility, requested the submission of data from 2010 to the present date, but failed to submit data in 2010, failed to provide counseling records for persons with disabilities (hereinafter “instant disposition”), failed to submit counseling records for persons with disabilities in residence (hereinafter “instant disposition”), failed to submit the current status of persons with disabilities in other facilities, and failed to transfer personal goods (hereinafter “instant disposition”).”

A) The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission. However, the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on July 1, 2015, and the written ruling was served on the Plaintiff on July 17, 2015. The written ruling was served on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on July 17, 2015. The Plaintiff: (a) written evidence Nos. 23 [Grounds for Recognition]; (b) written evidence Nos. 1, 7, and 23; (c) written evidence Nos. 3; and (d) written evidence Nos. 1, 3; and (b) the Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s main defense of safety; and (c) thus, the instant claim was replaced with the head of the facility according to the instant disposition. Accordingly, there is no benefit of lawsuit. Accordingly, the fact that the head of the facility of this case was replaced from the Plaintiff on February 25, 2015 does not conflict between the parties.

Article 26-2 [Attachment 42.2.