1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. Circumstances of the disposition and proceedings thereof;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a general restaurant in the name of “C” on the first floor of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and on January 28, 2016, the Plaintiff was found to have provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles. On March 31, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension two months (from April 20, 2016 to June 18, 2016) (the instant disposition was conducted under the following) against the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition, claiming that the disposition was unlawful as it deviates from or abused the bounds of discretionary power. On April 19, 2016, the court changed the instant disposition to “1. The Defendant’s business suspension one month and penalty surcharge of KRW 3.9 million to the Plaintiff and the Defendant litigation performer.”

2. If the Defendant changed the disposition as stipulated in paragraph 1, the Plaintiff immediately withdraws the lawsuit of this case, and the Defendant consents thereto.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

"In this regard, I recommended mediation to resolve the dispute."

C. On May 16, 2016, the Defendant accepted the recommendation of the instant court, and revoked the instant disposition and imposed a new disposition of business suspension one month (from May 20, 2016 to June 18, 2016) and a penalty surcharge of KRW 3.9 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. As to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio, a litigation seeking to examine whether the instant lawsuit is lawful, and a litigation seeking to recover from the original state by excluding any unlawful state arising from an unlawful disposition, etc. to relieve the rights and interests infringed or obstructed by the relevant disposition, the validity of the disposition, etc. shall continue to exist, and it shall be possible to restore the original state by the revocation thereof.

However, as seen earlier, the instant disposition seeking the revocation of the instant lawsuit by the Plaintiff is revoked and remains effective, and thus there is no interest in the lawsuit seeking the revocation of the disposition.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is brought.