A. On May 23, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a claim for temporary layoff benefits against the Defendant on June 2, 2014, for the period of “from July 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013,” with the Defendant’s medical care approval on April 24, 2014 due to the outbreak of heart rain.”

B. On August 5, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision on August 5, 2014 on the ground that only 58 days of temporary layoff benefits are available during the remaining period of employment during the period of temporary layoff benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. Meanwhile, after the application for temporary layoff benefits, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for approval of additional injury or disease on September 24, 2014 and obtained approval for medical care from the Defendant on October 2, 2014.

The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for review and reexamination, but all of which were dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6 (including each number), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. From July 1, 2012 to February 28, 2013, ex officio whether a claim for the revocation of the site payment of temporary layoff benefits is legitimate, the part of the claim for the revocation of the site payment of temporary layoff benefits in the instant lawsuit is legitimate.

If an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall lose its validity, no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as it does not have a benefit of lawsuit.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202, Dec. 13, 2012). According to the record, the Defendant accepted the recommendation of the instant court for conciliation, and revoked ex officio the site portion of temporary layoff benefits for the period from July 1, 2012 to February 28, 2013, which is the date of closing the argument of the instant case.