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. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the Plaintiff’s determination as to the contents asserted in the court of first instance as stated in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion

A. 1) Determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion of unfair retroactive application of the new Acts and subordinate statutes 1) The provision of “special activity expenses” as necessary expenses, such as childcare fees, is 2012, which was conducted before the Plaintiff’s provision of special activity expenses. If the Plaintiff’s act is deemed to have been paid in excess of the necessary expense receipt limit with the Plaintiff’s act, it is unreasonable to retroactively apply the above guidelines. 2) In addition to the above evidence, the following facts can be acknowledged. (1) Article 38 of the Infant Care Act provides that “A person who establishes and operates a child care center pursuant to the provisions of Articles 12 through 14 may receive childcare fees and other necessary expenses from the users of the child care center within the scope determined by the Mayor/Do Governor having jurisdiction over the location of the child care center, which is delegated by the Mayor/Do Governor to the extent of the child care center fees and necessary expenses, etc., and the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s provision of guidance for infant care expenses, which is, in principle, by dividing the above-mentioned guidance for infant care expenses by year.