2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

This Court's reasoning is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (No. 4 through No. 42). Thus, this Court's reasoning is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The defendant asserts that there is no interest in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of this case since the plaintiff closed the emission facility of this case.

A lawsuit seeking the cancellation of an illegal administrative disposition is a lawsuit seeking to restore the state of illegality caused by the illegal disposition to its original state and protect or protect the rights and interests infringed or obstructed by such disposition, and thus the revocation of such unlawful disposition is revoked

If reinstatement is impossible, there is no benefit to seek cancellation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Nu5403 delivered on October 25, 1994, etc.). In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement Nos. 11-1 and 2-2, the Plaintiff closed the instant emission facility and reported the closure to the Defendant pursuant to Article 23(2) of the Clean Air Conservation Act on August 7, 2019. Thus, even if the instant disposition ordering the suspension of operation of the instant emission facility was revoked, it is impossible to restore the instant emission facility to its original state as long as the instant emission facility was closed.

Therefore, there is no benefit to seek cancellation of the disposition of this case, and the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

The defendant's prior defense on the merits is reasonable.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed, since it is unfair to conclude otherwise, it shall be revoked and the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.