1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff obtained a building permit for a convalescent hospital on the ground of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government land B from the Defendant, and thereafter filed a report on the commencement of the construction of the above hospital with the Defendant.

B. On September 20, 2018, the Defendant revoked the above building permit on the ground of collective civil petitions filed by local residents, etc., and rejected the building commencement report on September 27, 2018 on the ground that the building permit was revoked.

(hereinafter “each disposition of this case”). (c)

The Plaintiff appealed and filed the instant lawsuit on October 11, 2018, and at the same time filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, and the said administrative appeals commission revoked each of the instant dispositions on December 10, 2018 on the ground that it was unlawful.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 21, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In an administrative appeal for ex officio determination, in case where the contents of the ruling by a ruling authority do not order a cancellation to the disposition agency, but the disposition by the disposition agency is revoked by itself, the relevant administrative disposition is naturally revoked and extinguished without any separate administrative disposition to wait for it due to its formation power, and when an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition ceases to exist as it becomes null and void, and any lawsuit for revocation against any nonexistent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit

Therefore, it is reasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1879, Apr. 12, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202, Dec. 13, 2012). Since the ruling authority directly cancelled each of the dispositions of this case on December 10, 2018, the fact that the ruling authority directly cancels each of the dispositions of this case was seen earlier, the lawsuit of this case is seeking the cancellation of the disposition that does not exist, and thus, the lawsuit of this case was unlawful as it

3. As such, the instant lawsuit is dismissed as it is unlawful, but the litigation cost falls under a case where a ruling authority dismisses a lawsuit on the ground that it is unlawful as to each of the dispositions of this case, and thus, Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act.