1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

First, we examine whether the instant lawsuit is legitimate.

Where a court decides to suspend the execution of a disposition of the administrative agency which ordered the suspension of business for a certain period of time, the progress of the period of suspension as determined in the disposition shall not be prevented, but where the period of suspension expires due to the expiration of the period of suspension as determined in the above disposition or the cancellation of the decision, etc., the period of suspension (where part of the period of suspension had already been completed at the time of the decision of suspension, the remaining period) which was determined in

(2) The Plaintiff filed an application with the competent court for the suspension of execution of the instant disposition on October 21, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). The Defendant filed an application for the suspension of execution of the instant disposition with the competent court for the revocation of the instant disposition through the principal trial of the first instance, and filed an application for the suspension of execution again with the competent court for the suspension of execution until the court rendered a ruling on October 21, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Du9012, Oct. 25, 2004; 2005Du7143, Oct. 13, 2005). The Defendant filed an application for the suspension of execution with the competent district court for the period of one month from October 20 to 19, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff filed an application for the suspension of execution with the competent court for the first instance trial of the first instance, and the Ulsan District Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for suspension of execution of execution.

Pursuant to the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant disposition has already become null and void after the lapse of one month from December 29, 2015, which was the day following the date on which the first instance judgment was rendered, and thus, the Plaintiff has no legal interest in seeking the revocation of the instant disposition by filing a lawsuit seeking the revocation thereof.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed in an unlawful manner, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed in a different conclusion, and thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair.