beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is the president of the C Child Care Center located in the Asan City B apartment management Dong (hereinafter “instant Child Care Center”).
B. On December 12, 2014, the Defendant’s employees visited the instant childcare center to interview the Plaintiff, teachers, etc., and conducted a fact-finding survey (hereinafter “instant on-site survey”), followed the Plaintiff registered as the said childcare center D/D (1/2 years old), but did not actually engage in childcare activities, and F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. E. E., a teacher of the E.W. (3 years old) was a teacher of G. H., and in the case of E, H, who is not qualified as a childcare teacher, was taking care of E.
C. Accordingly, on April 29, 2015, the Defendant rendered the Plaintiff a disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) as stated in the purport of the claim based on Article 40 Subparag. 3 of the former Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 13321, May 18, 2015; hereinafter “former Infant Care Act”) and Article 40 Subparag. 1, Article 45(1) and Subparag. 2 and 4, Article 46 Subparag. 4, Article 48(1)4, Article 48(1)4, and Article 28(1) of the Infant Care Guidelines (hereinafter “instant Guidelines”) on the following grounds, with the exception of the remaining dispositions (hereinafter “instant disposition”), excluding the disposition of imposition of penalty surcharges, “the return of subsidies, suspension of qualification,” “the disposition of qualification suspension,” and “the disposition of deletion of infant care teachers” (hereinafter “the foregoing dispositions”) and the previous dispositions of deletion on December 1, 2014”).
In accordance with Article 21 of the former Infant Care Act and Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the Infant Care Act, childcare teachers are qualified to engage in childcare services for unqualified persons (hereinafter “instant illegal act”), and Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the Infant Care Act, and Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the Infant Care Act; however, according to the relevant Acts, the Plaintiff had trainees H perform childcare services from October 2014 to December 12, 2014, but the Plaintiff had them conduct childcare services under the name of infant care teachers.