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

The Defendant concluded a construction contract on D Construction Work “D” (hereinafter “instant Construction Work”) with the Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter “B”) and the Gangwon-gun Seoul.

The Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the structural construction work during the foregoing construction work from B.

On December 2, 2017, the defendant revoked the above construction contract, and entered into a contract for construction with E companies around December 26 of the same year.

On March 20, 2018, March 30, 2018, and April 17, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the removal or removal of the instant construction site at least three times.

On April 26, 2018, pursuant to Article 83 of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act and Article 3(1) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, the Defendant issued a separate disposition for vicarious administrative execution (the due date: May 11, 2018; hereinafter “instant disposition”) with the following content to the Plaintiff:

C The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on July 30, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 4, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 11, and the whole purport of the lawsuit of this case (ex officio judgment) has already been completed as an act of fact, there is no legal interest in seeking nullification or revocation of the action of guidance or vicarious execution itself.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu2623, Jul. 28, 1995). Around August 29, 2018, after the Defendant instituted the instant lawsuit, the fact that the Defendant performed a vicarious execution with respect to construction materials on the instant construction site subject to the instant disposition, and completed such vicarious execution does not conflict between the parties.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition is unlawful as there is no legal interest.

In conclusion, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.