1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 17, 2020, the Defendant issued a warning order to the effect that “The instant disposition” was made against Article 14 of the Building Act, on the ground that “The 91.26m2 of the light-to-land aggregate structure detached house of the light-to-land B is a building in violation of Article 14 of the Building Act, and thus, voluntary removal by April 16, 2020” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. The Defendant deemed that the procedure needs to be supplemented under Articles 21 and 22 of the Administrative Procedures Act, and revoked the instant disposition ex officio on April 28, 2020 where the instant lawsuit is pending.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Even if a lawsuit seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition on the lawfulness of the lawsuit of this case is lawful at the time of filing the lawsuit, if the disposition agency ex officio revokes an administrative disposition which is the object of dispute during the proceeding of the lawsuit, the disposition loses its validity and does not exist any longer. Thus, an appeal litigation against the non-existent disposition, in principle, is unlawful because the interest of

That is, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Du5317, Sept. 28, 2006; 2018Du49130, Jun. 27, 2019). In the instant lawsuit, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s interest in the instant lawsuit was extinguished by ex officio revocation of the instant disposition during the proceeding, and thus, is unlawful.

3. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful, and all of the costs of lawsuit are to be borne by the Defendant pursuant to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.