1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. This part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from two pages to three pages 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance). Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. Since the Defendant’s main defense ex officio revoked the instant disposition at the trial court, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed.

B. If an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall lose its validity, and no longer exists, and a revocation suit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

According to the evidence No. 8 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16879, Apr. 29, 2010). The Defendant’s revocation ex officio of the instant disposition against the Plaintiff on April 19, 2017, where the instant lawsuit is pending, can be acknowledged.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is seeking the revocation of a disposition which has not been extinguished and became unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

3. In conclusion, the decision of the first instance is revoked and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the total cost of the lawsuit is borne by the defendant pursuant to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act.