1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

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

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 2 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du5317, Sept. 28, 2006) in light of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant cancels the disposition stated in the purport of the claim on June 30, 2015. As such, the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition for which no lawsuit exists and thus, became unlawful

Furthermore, we examine the costs of lawsuit.

The delivery under Article 43 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor shall be deemed to include an explanation. Such an explanation obligation shall not be deemed to require a direct exercise of power in the compulsory realization of it, and it shall not be deemed to be an alternative act obligation, and thus, it shall not be deemed to be an object of vicarious execution under the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, barring any special circumstance.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da2809, Aug. 19, 2005). The duty to explain the obstacles of this case cannot be deemed as the alternative duty to act, and thus, it is not the object of vicarious execution, and it is necessary to follow the procedures of civil action for life-saving or life-sustaining provisional disposition.

In the same purport, the Defendant appears to have revoked the instant order against the Plaintiff, and thus, the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant pursuant to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act.