2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

This Court's reasoning is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court's reasoning is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

If an administrative disposition is revoked ex officio as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case, the disposition becomes null and void, and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of the lawsuit.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16879 Decided April 29, 2010). The fact that the Defendant revoked all of the instant dispositions ex officio on July 10, 2017 is apparent in the record.

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.

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as unlawful, and the judgment of the court of first instance, which has different conclusions, is unfair, and thus the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the total cost of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant under Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act