1. The Defendant’s repayment of the total amount of KRW 5,126,000 to the Plaintiff on March 9, 2015.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the head of a child-care center that operates the C Child-Care Center in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City B apartment.

B. On May 8, 2013, the Seoul Yangyang Police Station notified the Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City of the fact that the Plaintiff was prosecuted on the ground that the Plaintiff was refunded KRW 5,126,000 of the special childcare center activity expenses from April 2010 to February 201, as the result of the rebates investigation of childcare center special childcare center activity expenses, and the Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City requested the Defendant to take an administrative disposition against the Plaintiff on the same day.

C. On August 9, 2013, the Defendant issued an administrative disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground of the foregoing facts, but revoked ex officio on the ground of procedural defects, and on March 9, 2015, issued a disposition ordering the Plaintiff to fully return KRW 5,126,000 of the special activity rebates (hereinafter “instant disposition”) for two months of qualification suspension for president (from April 20, 2015 to June 19, 2015) (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and KRW 5,126,000 of the special activity rebates to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) although the plaintiff was entitled to a refund of KRW 5,126,00,000, out of the money paid as special activity expenses for child care centers, the plaintiff was entitled to a correction order only when he was paid child care fees in excess of the limit. Since the plaintiff was paid special activity expenses within the extent not exceeding KRW 90,000 per month set by the Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City, the disposition of the return order in this case is illegal disposition without legal basis. 2) The Infant Care Act provides that the head of the child care center may suspend the qualification when the loss is inflicted on the child care center, and the damage here means that the damage was inflicted on the child care center. The plaintiff