1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. We examine ex officio whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate, and if an administrative disposition is revoked, the disposition becomes null and void, and no longer exists. A revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16879, Apr. 29, 2010). The Defendant’s revocation of the instant disposition on the grounds that the Defendant, while pending the instant lawsuit, needs to re-examine the Plaintiff on February 27, 2018 through re-examineing the refugee status, is apparent in the evidence No. 5, and thus, the instant lawsuit is seeking revocation of a disposition that has not already been extinguished and thus, became unlawful as there was no benefit of lawsuit.

3. The decision of the court of first instance is unlawful, and thus, the decision of the court of first instance shall be dismissed. Thus, the decision of the court of first instance shall be dismissed.

Meanwhile, in principle, the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in accordance with Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act, but it is reasonable for the defendant to bear each of the costs of lawsuit in consideration of the fact that the plaintiff lost in the first instance court, and the circumstances leading up to the revocation of ex officio.