1. The Defendant’s disposition of return KRW 36,916,840 of the subsidy granted to the Plaintiff on March 5, 2015 is revoked.

2. The plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the head of the “C Regional Child Center” (hereinafter “child center of this case”) located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City B and the second floor.

B. From March 28, 2012 to July 15, 2014, the Defendant: (a) reported the fact that the Plaintiff was full-time in the child center in the instant case, and confirmed the receipt of the subsidy; and (b) on October 10, 2014, issued a disposition to suspend business operations for three months and to return KRW 36,916,840, under Article 56(1)5 and Article 61(2) of the Child Welfare Act on the ground that the Plaintiff received the subsidy by fraud or other wrongful means.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with each of the above dispositions and filed a petition for adjudication with the Incheon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Incheon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission changed the business suspension from three months to fifteen days on January 26, 2015, and dismissed the remainder of the claims.

Accordingly, according to the result of the above ruling on March 5, 2015, the Defendant again issued a disposition suspending the business for 15 days and a disposition returning the subsidy of 36,916,840 won (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 23, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each disposition of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff had insufficient operating expenses of the child center of this case and used the benefits received at that place for the operation fund of the child center of this case. The plaintiff operated the child center of this case faithfully as the head of the child center of this case, children and juveniles using the child center of this case lose their seat, and since most of the assets were donated to the child center of this case, the disposition of the return of the subsidy of this case is too excessive.