1. Two months (from November 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018) of the qualification suspension of infant care teachers imposed on the Plaintiff on October 21, 2018.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was employed as C Child Care Teachers, a public child care center in Chuncheon City, B (hereinafter “instant child care center”).

B. On July 24, 2018, the Plaintiff took charge of the seeds 1 and 4 integrated classes of the Child Care Center of this case, the accident occurred, i.e., the son D (the 2 years of age at that time), the son E (the 1 years of age at that time) was shouldered on July 3, 2018, and ii) the head of the son E was drawn up on July 24, 2018.

(hereinafter “each of the instant accidents”) C.

On October 21, 2018, following a hearing on October 12, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to suspend the qualification of an infant care teacher for two months from November 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018 to the Plaintiff as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"). When an accident (such as violation of the principle of safety management of infants) occurs with respect to an infant (two times, seven.3/7.24) immediately in the event of the occurrence of an accident with respect to the infant, an administrative disposition against the head of the child care center and the guardian of the infant and the infant shall be taken without reporting and discretionary treatment, and Article 24 (1) of the Infant Care Act-related Acts and subordinate statutes, Article 31 (2) of the Infant Care Act (Standards, etc. for Operation of Child Care Centers) of Article 31 (Health Management and Emergency Measures) of the Infant Care Act, Article 47 (1) 1 of the Infant Care Act, Article 23 (Standards for Operation of Child Care Teachers) of the Enforcement Rule of the Infant Care Act

(a) Where a child care teacher causes any of the following losses by intention or gross negligence in connection with his/her qualification in the course of performing his/her duties (3. other cases), the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 7 and 10 (including the number of each branch number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings:

2. The assertion;

A. The Plaintiff did not prevent the instant accident in the course of performing its duties as Defendant Infant Care Teachers, and the occurrence of an accident to the president and the parents of victimized children immediately after the occurrence of the accident.