beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s order to return subsidies of KRW 2,691,320 to the Plaintiff on June 26, 2017, and penalty surcharges of KRW 6,300 as of February 14, 2017.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a person operating the “C Child Care Center” located in Suwon-si District B (hereinafter “instant child care center”). D was assigned from September 1, 2015 as a teacher of the instant child care center from September 1, 2015, as a teacher of the instant child care center (based on October 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply), as a teacher of the So-called “C Child Care Center” (based on October 2016), as a teacher of the So-called Child Care Center, who is one half-year old, as a part of the time extension team, as a one-half-year-old watch teacher, and as a one-half-year-old watch teacher, G and H two-year-old children were assigned, one-half in trust, one-half in trust, and five-year children in the so-called So-called one-half.
B. At around 12:30 on October 7, 2016, the Defendant confirmed that D did not work at work despite G and H level as a result of the guidance and inspection on the instant childcare center. On February 16, 2017, the Defendant issued an order to the Plaintiff to return KRW 2,956,320 in total, KRW 2,956,320 in basic childcare subsidy and KRW 2,95,320 in time extension work allowance and KRW 2,95-2,320 in total pursuant to Article 45(1)1 of the Infant Care Act and imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 6,300 in lieu of the suspension of the operation of the childcare center of this case pursuant to Article 17 of the Infant Care Act and Article 10 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground of “violation of the requirements for the payment of subsidies due to non-compliance of the childcare school hours” (hereinafter “instant grounds for disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal.
Accordingly, the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission on April 17, 2017
B. On May 1, 2017, the said written ruling (hereinafter “instant written ruling”) was delivered to the Plaintiff on partially citing the revocation of the order to return the stated subsidies.
On June 26, 2017, the defendant issued a second disposition following the above partial acceptance ruling, with respect to the plaintiff 2,691,320 won of basic childcare subsidies pursuant to Article 40 subparagraph 3 of the Infant Care Act.