logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.07.25 2018구합63076
과징금부과처분 등 취소
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the operator of the C Child Care Center in the Hanam-si B apartment management Dong (hereinafter “instant Child Care Center”).

B. On November 22, 2017, public officials affiliated with the lower court visited the instant childcare center to conduct on-site inspections on the Plaintiff’s report that the Plaintiff was unlawfully receiving subsidies by registering the instant childcare center as a teacher with D and E.

C. On April 2, 2018, the Defendant: (a) registered the Plaintiff as if he/she had worked as a teacher of the instant childcare center; and (b) received teachers’ treatment improvement expenses and working environment improvement expenses by unlawful means from August 8, 2017 to October 2017; (c) during the pertinent period, the Defendant returned 2.5,00 won in total of the treatment improvement expenses and working environment improvement expenses provided to D and E; and (d) imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 1,476,00 in lieu of the suspension of operation for three months (from April 9, 2018 to July 8, 2018).

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion D and E worked as a teacher in charge of F/L of the instant childcare center and G/L at the same time as a teacher in charge of the instant childcare center.

D and E did not reside in the class of the Ban and worked for not less than eight hours a day, work as a teacher of the Ban in fact, and if the class is absent due to the role of the prime superintendent and the senior teacher, it requested other teachers who have the certificate of infant care to provide child care so that there is no gap in infant care.

Therefore, even though the Plaintiff had falsely registered D and E as a teacher in charge, or had not received D and E treatment costs and environmental improvement costs by fraud or other improper means, the Defendant erred by ascertaining the facts and issued the instant disposition.

(b).

arrow