1. Revocation of the part against the director of the Gyeonggi-do Tax Office in the judgment of the first instance, and falling under the revoked part;

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are as follows: "The disposition of this case" in the 3th 16th eth eth 1 of the judgment of the first instance (the eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eths) and "the disposition of this case" in the 4th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e.g.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion of ex officio determination.

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

(2) On December 13, 2012, 209Du16879, Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202 Decided December 13, 2012 (see Supreme Court Decisions 2012Du18202, Apr. 29, 2010; 2012Du18202, Dec. 13, 2012). However, as the purport of the judgment of the first instance court after the date of the closing of argument, the head of the labor office having jurisdiction over the business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business and its business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business owner’s business.