logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.10.17 2014구합9146
사업정지처분 등 취소
Text

1. The Defendant’s disposition of recovering subsidies against the Plaintiffs on October 21, 2014 is revoked.

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remainder.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff A is the representative of the D regional children's center located in the second floor of Gyeyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter "the center of this case") and the plaintiff B is the head of the center of this case.

B. On October 21, 2014, the Defendant: (a) filed a request with the Plaintiffs to suspend the use of the instant center for the period (E, F, G, H, and hereinafter “instant children”) during which he/she did not appear without processing the use thereof; (b) F (from August 31, 2008 to July 1, 2014) (from August 31, 2008 to June 30, 2013 to June 30, 2013), G (from March 2, 2012 to July 1, 2014) and H (hereinafter “instant disposition”); (c) based on the Child Welfare Act’s collection of subsidies and its suspension of the use thereof, the Defendant’s total amount of subsidies and its suspension of the use of those subsidies and its suspension of the use of those subsidies and its suspension of the use of those subsidies and its suspension of the use of those subsidies and its suspension of the use of those subsidies and their suspension of the use of those subsidies and their suspension of the use of the Child Welfare Act.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiffs filed a false claim for a child’s meal subsidy against the aforementioned children by making a false statement in the attendance of the Plaintiffs E (from August 31, 2008 to July 1, 2014), F (from August 31, 2008 to June 30, 2013), G (from March 2, 2012 to July 1, 2014), H (from March 1, 201 to October 31, 201, from August 1, 201 to July 7, 2014). However, each of the dispositions of this case was unlawful since the said children actually attended the instant center during the pertinent period.

(b) Attached Form 2 of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. 1) Determination 1) E, F’s part A, F’s number 1, 2, 4, and 10 is the case.

arrow