1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Circumstances of each disposition of this case;

A. From May 2014 to September 2014, the Plaintiff was appointed and dismissed as a child care teacher who holds a five-one-one-one-one-year infant care teacher’s license in the Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter “instant child care center”), the Plaintiff is the representative of the instant child care center and the president of the instant child care center, and on October 21, 2014, the deceased D’s wife who was employed as the principal of the instant child care center.

B. On September 25, 2014, the Ministry of Health and Welfare conducted guidance and inspection on the instant childcare center, and as a result, the network D, who was the head of the instant childcare center, reported the appointment and dismissal of the Plaintiff to the five-year childcare teachers of the instant childcare center, but in fact the Plaintiff did not take charge of childcare services for about five months from May 2014 to September 2014, and Nonparty E, who was not qualified as infant care teachers, was informed the Gwangju Metropolitan City Mayor of this fact.

C. On October 1, 2014, the Gwangju Metropolitan City Mayor notified the Defendant of the result of the foregoing guidance and inspection, the Defendant, on December 12, 2014, issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s qualification as an infant care teacher on the ground that the actual infant care was rendered on the ground that the Plaintiff, his spouse, was registered as an infant care teacher from May 2014 to September 2014, and that the actual infant care was allowed to take charge on behalf of the unqualified (hereinafter “the cancellation of qualification as an infant care teacher”), and issued a disposition to delete the Plaintiff’s career as an infant care teacher from May 2014 to September 2014 (hereinafter “the cancellation of qualification as an infant care teacher”).

The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Gwangju Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on May 22, 2015, which was dissatisfied with the preceding dispositions, but the said commission rendered a ruling dismissing the above appeal.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of each of the preceding dispositions with the Gwangju District Court 2015Guhap11554, but the said court filed an administrative litigation.