1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details and details of the disposition;

A. On March 17, 2014, the prosecutor of Suwon District Court Sung-nam Branch Office (hereinafter “Songnam Branch Office”) indicted the Plaintiff as an offense of occupational embezzlement.

B. On April 5, 2016, the head of Sung-nam Branch requested the Defendant to prohibit the Plaintiff from departing from the Republic of Korea on the grounds that the Defendant was pending in a criminal trial (U.S. District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Office

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(i) [In the absence of dispute over the basis of recognition, entry of Gap 1 and 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. If an administrative disposition is revoked as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case, such disposition is null and void, and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202, Dec. 13, 2012). According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the instant disposition was revoked ex officio on June 2, 2016 while the instant lawsuit is pending, and thus, there is no benefit in the lawsuit, since the instant lawsuit is subject to a disposition with no effect already extinguished.

3. The instant lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are to be borne by the Defendant pursuant to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act.