2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

A. From November 9, 2007 to 25 workers employed by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff conducted a "professional co-name program" recognized as a vocational skills development training course pursuant to Article 24 of the former Workers' Vocational Skills Development Act (amended by Act No. 9316 of Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "former Vocational Skills Development Act") for 25 days from November 9, 2007, and received training expenses from the Defendant.

B. On March 23, 2011, the Defendant rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that “A worker A, who was unable to participate in the instant training course while leaving Korea for business purposes during the instant training period and was paid training expenses by false or other unlawful means” (as amended by Act No. 8429, May 11, 2007; hereinafter “former Employment Insurance Act”) Article 35(1) of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 9315, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter “former Employment Insurance Act”); Article 56(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21015, Sept. 18, 2008; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act”); Article 25 of the former Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21015, Mar. 29, 2008; hereinafter “the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act”) and returned subsidies to the Plaintiff for one year (within 257.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

Judgment ex officio is made.

A. If an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition becomes void and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du5317, Sept. 28, 2006).

B. In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 8, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality on August 29, 2013 on the ground that Article 35(1) of the former Employment Insurance Act violates the principle of prohibition of comprehensive delegation under Article 75 of the Constitution (201Hun-Ba390). Accordingly, the defendant revoked the instant disposition against the plaintiff on October 18, 2013 ex officio.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is unlawful as there is no interest in the lawsuit, as it is against the nonexistent disposition.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed, and the total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant pursuant to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and it

Judges Lee Jong-chul

Judges Kim Gung-sik