1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From August 31, 2011 to November 15, 2016, the Plaintiff is the head of the “C Childcare Center” (hereinafter “instant childcare center”) located in Busan Shipping Daegu and 105 Dong 405 (hereinafter “instant childcare center”).

B. On October 21, 2016, the Defendant: (a) reported that the Plaintiff was concurrently a director and a teacher who did not provide childcare services as a teacher for childcare; and (b) received basic childcare fees of KRW 5,249,100, and working environment improvement expenses of KRW 600,00, which were subsidized to the president holding the concurrent office of teachers from January 1, 2016 to October 2016; (c) based on subparagraph 3 of Article 40 and subparagraph 4 of Article 46 of the Infant Care Act, on January 4, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to recover the said subsidies of KRW 5,849,10 in total (hereinafter “instant disposition”); and (d) issued a disposition to suspend qualifications for the head of the instant kindergarten and one year.

C. On April 12, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of each of the above dispositions, but was dismissed on May 30, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 2, 6, 10 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

가. 원고의 주장 영유아교육법령에는 원장과 담임교사의 직무를 명확히 구분하는 규정이 없고 원장과 담임교사 직무 비율에 대해서도 명확하게 규정하고 있지 아니하는데, 원고는 이 사건 어린이집의 원장 직무를 하면서 틈틈이 담임교사로서의 업무를 수행하여 이 사건 어린이집의 원장과 담임교사를 겸임하였으므로, 이 사건 처분사유는 존재하지 아니한다.

In addition, the Plaintiff recovers the full amount of the instant subsidy from the Plaintiff, who used the instant subsidy individually and for the care of the originals, experienced economic difficulties as sources of the instant childcare center even though it was used.