1. On June 16, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to close the childcare center to the Plaintiff and a disposition to suspend the president’s qualification for one year.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the head of a child-care center who operates a private infant-only child-care center (hereinafter “instant child-care center”) under the name of “B child-care center” after obtaining authorization from the Defendant.

B. On May 11, 2017, the Defendant conducted guidance and inspection on the instant childcare center, and issued a refund of KRW 10,866,180 of the subsidy granted to the Plaintiff on the grounds of the following violations, and issued a disposition of the closure of the childcare center (from September 1, 2017 to August 31, 2018), and the suspension of the president qualification for one year (from September 1, 2017 to August 31, 2018).

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition” for the closure of child-care centers and suspension of one-year president’s qualification. - Illegal receipt of subsidies due to the organization of false violations and the violation of the standards for subsidization of personnel expenses - Application for subsidies on March 3, 2017 and April 2017 (mix 1, 2). In the case of the zero-year group, subsidies were granted to two or more children on the basis of the standards for subsidization of personnel expenses, but subsidies were granted to the two or more children on March 3, 2017 and April 1, 207 and the two-year group of children on April 3, 2017 and, regardless of the number of children on the one-year group of children on the other, the two children on the one-year group of false (C) were being taken care of against others, and the teachers in charge on the one-year group of false (C) were also taking care of at zero-year group of children on the other-year group of pleadings. / [Recognition grounds] There is no dispute.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, while operating a child-care center, the Plaintiff was unable to obtain education on the standards for subsidization of personnel expenses from the Defendant, etc., and did not know the standards for subsidization.

Although the Defendant received the “child care business guidance” book from the Defendant, the Defendant applied for the support of personnel expenses using only the integrated child care information system, so the booker did not look at.

The plaintiff was registered as a true child in the Integrated Information System for Infant Care, and all infant care teachers are registered in the stamp of subsidy.