A. From September 10, 207 to October 8, 2007, the Plaintiff entrusted the B college C Campus with the training course for power-driven vessels and the electrical system control three curricula (hereinafter “instant training course”) from September 10, 207, and applied for training expenses to the head of the Gwangju Regional Employment and Labor Agency. On December 26, 2007, the head of the Gwangju Regional Employment and Labor Agency paid the Plaintiff KRW 87,130, and KRW 83,400 as training expenses for E-related workers D, respectively. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20427, Dec. 26, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 2020, Dec. 26, 2007>

B. On December 23, 2010, the head of the Jeonju District Office issued a collection notice of KRW 170,530 in total to the Plaintiff, and recovered the training expenses. On May 6, 2011, on the grounds that the Plaintiff was provided with training expenses by fraud or other improper means, the head of the Jeonju District Office ordered the Plaintiff to return the subsidies of Jeonju District Office 137,815,277 won paid to the Plaintiff during the period of disposition restriction and payment restriction pursuant to Article 35 of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 9315, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 56(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act for one year from the date of illegal receipt (from December 27, 2007 to December 26, 2008) and Article 56(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act.

C. On May 20, 201, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to return KRW 37,925,330, out of the period of restriction on payment (from December 27, 2007 to December 26, 2008) based on Article 35 of the former Employment Insurance Crime Act, the Plaintiff received subsidies from the Defendant.

D. Meanwhile, on August 29, 2013, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality that Article 35(1) of the former Employment Insurance Act contravenes the principle of comprehensive prohibition (2011Hun-Ba390).

E. On September 30, 2013, the head of Gwangju Regional Employment and Labor Office revoked ex officio the order to refund subsidies for KRW 37,925,330 on October 21, 2013, and the Defendant revoked ex officio the order to refund subsidies for KRW 37,925,330.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A lawsuit seeking the revocation of an illegal administrative disposition ex officio is a lawsuit seeking the restoration to the original state by removing the illegal state caused by an illegal disposition, and protecting or remedying the rights and interests infringed or interfered with such disposition. Thus, if an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition is null and void, and no longer exists, and a lawsuit seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of

As seen in the background of the above disposition, the Defendant’s primary and conjunctive claims in this case are subject to an administrative disposition that does not exist, and thus, are unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the primary and conjunctive claims of this case are unlawful, all of them are dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant in accordance with the purport of Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gung-dong

The chief of judge;