1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the representative of C Child Care Center located in C (hereinafter “Child Care Center in this case”), and D is the principal of the Child Care Center in this case, who is responsible for the supervision of the Child Care Center in this case and instructs and supervises child care teachers and other employees.

B. On April 10, 2013, the Defendant publicly announced the recruitment of public child care centers for private child care centers, and the instant child care centers, which were private child care centers, were selected as public child care centers that received more subsidies from the Defendant on April 25, 2013 for personnel expenses and operating expenses for infant care teachers.

C. On July 16, 2013, the original state Mayor suspended the qualification of the head of D for 45 days (from September 1, 2013 to October 15, 2013) pursuant to Article 46 Subparag. 2 of the former Infant Care Act (Amended by Act No. 11858, Jun. 4, 2013; hereinafter the same) and Article 39 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Infant Care Act (Amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 233, Mar. 7, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the ground that D was employed as an unqualified childcare teacher and had him/her perform his/her duties as a childcare teacher. D.

D An administrative litigation (2013Guhap2196) against the original state market for the revocation of the above disposition was filed in this court. However, this court rendered a ruling dismissing D's claim on November 21, 2014, and the above ruling became final and conclusive around that time.

E. Accordingly, on the ground that D, the head of the instant childcare center, was subject to the “45-day suspension of the qualification for the head of the instant childcare center,” the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the designation of the public childcare center for the Plaintiff on December 24, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 to 8 (including relevant numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful.