1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition of this case are as follows: (a) the first instance court's judgment among the reasons for the first instance; (b) the part on September 11, 2009 "209" in the second instance 18; (c) the part on "A" in the second instance 4; (d) the part on "A" in the fourth and sixth 6th 4th 6th 6th 7th 2009; and (d) the part on "B No. 1 through 5, 9, 11, 12, 29 (including various numbers)" in the fourth 7th 17-18 7th 7th 7th 17th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 2009 7th 9th 7th 9th 2000 7th 9th 7th 9th 2009.

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking the revocation of the instant disposition, the Defendant asserted that the period of implementation of the instant disposition was determined as “by November 30, 2010,” and that, as long as the said period of implementation has already expired, it is impossible to implement the instant disposition in accordance with the instant disposition even if the disposition was revoked, there is no benefit in the protection of rights to seek the revocation of the instant disposition.

B. (1) A lawsuit seeking revocation of an illegal administrative disposition in violation of the relevant legal principles is a lawsuit seeking restoration to the original state by excluding an illegal state arising from such an illegal disposition and protective measures against the rights and interests infringed or interfered with such disposition, and thus revocation of such unlawful disposition

Even if it is impossible to recover the original state, there is no benefit to seek cancellation in principle, but even if it is impossible to recover the basic right through the cancellation of the illegal administrative disposition, if there remains a legal benefit to protect the original state, the action to seek cancellation.