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 for this part of the disposition are the same as the entry in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. We examine the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit ex officio.

When an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall lose its validity, and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16879 Decided April 29, 2010, etc.). Examining the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 9, the Defendant’s revocation of the instant disposition made against the Plaintiff on February 7, 2018, while the instant lawsuit is pending, and thus, sought revocation of the disposition that had not been extinguished and became illegal as there was no benefit of lawsuit.

3. The decision of the court of first instance is unlawful and dismissed, and the decision of the court of first instance is so unfair that the decision of the court of first instance is revoked and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed. Meanwhile, the lawsuit of this case is to be borne by the defendant in principle pursuant to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act, but the plaintiff was against the court of first instance, and it is reasonable to pay each party the lawsuit of this case according to the mediation recommendation of this court (the defendant's ex officio revocation, the plaintiff's withdrawal of lawsuit, and the cost of litigation).