1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment by the court is the same as that of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

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

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16879 Decided April 29, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16879, Apr. 29, 201). In full view of the Plaintiff’s legal nature of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s claim that the instant lawsuit was not illegal, and that the instant disposition was voluntarily revoked on July 7, 2015, and the Defendant sought revocation of the instant disposition as a ground for appeal, and thus, the instant lawsuit would lose its validity due to revocation and seek revocation repeatedly against any non-existent administrative disposition, and is unlawful as there is no benefit in the lawsuit.

3. If so, the suit of this case is dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in conclusion, so the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the suit of this case shall be dismissed, and the total costs of the suit shall be borne by the defendant under Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act and shall be borne by the defendant