logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2015.03.19 2014구합1340
어린이집원장자격취소처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From August 23, 2013 to March 11, 2014, the Plaintiff was registered as the president of the C Child Care Center located in Chungcheongnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant Child Care Center”).

B. On June 25, 2014, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s qualification as the head of the childcare center pursuant to Article 48 of the Infant Care Act on the ground that the Plaintiff, who actually worked as the principal of the childcare center even after the Plaintiff was registered as the principal of the childcare center, had D, registered as the representative of the childcare center of the instant childcare center, conduct the duties of the principal and lent the name of the principal to the head of the childcare center, thereby

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Chungcheongbuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the above claim was dismissed on September 12, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3 and 7 (each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was registered as the principal of the child care center of this case while he was employed as the child care teacher at the child care center of this case, and the plaintiff continued to find the plaintiff and continued to do so with the newly appointed infant care teacher, and the plaintiff did not lend the plaintiff's name or certificate of qualification to any other person, and the plaintiff actually performed the principal's duties at the child care center of this case, the defendant's disposition of this case on the ground that the plaintiff lent the name of the child care center which was prohibited by Article 22-2 of the Infant Care Act to the principal

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. Article 21 of the Infant Care Act provides different qualifications for the head of a childcare center and a nursery teacher, and Article 22-2 of the same Act provides that the head of a childcare center and the nursery teacher shall be subject to the prohibition of lending their names.

arrow