1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. We examine ex officio whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate, and if an administrative disposition is revoked, the disposition becomes null and void, and no longer exists. A revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16879, Apr. 29, 2010). The Defendant’s revocation of the instant disposition on February 14, 2018, which was pending in the instant lawsuit, is apparent in the statement of evidence No. 5, and thus, sought revocation of the instant disposition that was not extinguished and thus, became illegal as there was no benefit of lawsuit.

3. The decision of the court of first instance is unlawful, and thus, the decision of the court of first instance shall be dismissed. Thus, the decision of the court of first instance shall be dismissed.

On the other hand, in principle, the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in accordance with Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act, but it is reasonable for the defendant to bear each of the costs of lawsuit in consideration of the circumstances such as the fact that the plaintiff lost in the first instance court, and the defendant voluntarily cancelled the disposition of this case according to the recommendation of this court for mediation (the defendant's ex officio cancellation, the withdrawal of the