The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Details of the disposition

On May 31, 2019, the Defendant issued a warning and fine for negligence (five million won) to the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 18 and 23 of the taxi Development Act and Articles 21 and 25 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on the ground that “the Plaintiff violated Article 12(1) of the Act on the Development of taxi Transportation Business (hereinafter “the Act”) by bearing the expenses incurred in purchasing and operating the taxi.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”. 【In the event that an administrative disposition is revoked as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit as to the facts without any dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the relevant disposition becomes null and void due to the revocation, and no longer exists. The 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 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16879, Apr. 29, 201). If the Defendant’s revocation ex officio of the instant disposition on July 24, 2019, following the filing of the instant lawsuit, if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statement in subparagraph 1, it may be acknowledged that the Defendant revoked the instant disposition on July 24, 201

3. In conclusion, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it is inappropriate, and the cost of lawsuit is determined at the defendant's expense pursuant to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act and decided as per Disposition.