2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the entry between 5 and 9 of the first instance court's reasoning 2, 5 and 3 of the second instance court's judgment. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio.

If an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall lose its validity and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition shall be unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16879, Apr. 29, 2010). According to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant’s revocation ex officio of the instant disposition on December 7, 2016, which was after the closing of argument in the instant case, may be recognized.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is seeking the revocation of a disposition that has not been extinguished and became unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

In conclusion, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed in an unlawful manner, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant under Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act.