1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. J is the representative director of the Plaintiff.

B. On February 12, 2015, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to dismiss the J, the representative director of the Plaintiff, pursuant to Article 22 of the Social Welfare Services Act, on the following grounds:

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). - The management improper (use) management improper (cash 200 million won) - The use of corporate accounting fraud and operating expenses (191 million won) - the failure to comply with an order for guidance and supervision (in case of failure to submit data and separation of corporate accounting), employment of corporate employees (social workers) - Report not to acquire corporate property - The act of breach of trust (in case of failure to perform duties, such as audit and inspection of corporate property) committed by an auditor of a corporation / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, and the purport of

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff 1 asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful because it is based on the acknowledgement or judgment of erroneous facts as seen below, and there is no ground for disposition.

① Although the Plaintiff paid KRW 200 million of the Plaintiff’s fundamental property as a deposit for lease to B hospital, this is not a useful property that can be returned at any time.

② The Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 150,00,00 for lease deposit, electric utility fee of KRW 2,857,760 for the purchase of medical appliances, and KRW 19,50,00 for the purchase of medical appliances to establish a new convalescent hospital in C is for the operation of the rehabilitation hospital for disabled persons, which is the Plaintiff’s objective business, and cannot be deemed accounting fraud. The Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 17,00,000 for the purchase of singinging facilities, made it inevitable for the Plaintiff to pay KRW 17,00 at the Plaintiff’s request during the closure of

③ The Plaintiff responded to the request of the Defendant, and the data that the Defendant requested was already included in the data that the Defendant had secured.

④ The Plaintiff employed three social workers.

⑤ The Plaintiff reported property acquired by the Plaintiff to the Defendant several times, but the Defendant intentionally reported it to the Defendant.