(Cheongju)Revocation of administrative action, etc.

Korea Railroad Corporation

The head of Daejeon Regional Employment and Labor Agency shall be the head of Daejeon Regional Employment and Labor Office

Cheongju District Court Decision 2011Guhap1912 Decided January 19, 2012

December 18, 2013

January 22, 2014

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 defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s order of return of KRW 1,881,00 to the Plaintiff on July 8, 2011 shall be revoked; 2. The purport of the appeal is revoked;

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this case is identical to the corresponding column of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated in Chapters 4 and 2 of the second judgment of the court of first instance). Thus, it shall accept it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 420

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

A. If an administrative disposition is revoked, the disposition becomes 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 2009Du16879, Apr. 29, 2010).

B. According to the purport of the entire statements and arguments as to the instant case, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality on August 29, 2013 on the grounds that Article 35(1) of the former Employment Insurance Act violates the principle of prohibition of comprehensive delegation under Article 75 of the Constitution (201Hun-Ba390), and accordingly, rendered a decision of unconstitutionality on the grounds that Article 35(1) of the former Employment Insurance Act

It is recognized that the Defendant revoked the instant disposition ex officio on November 15, 2013. Therefore, the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant disposition was filed against a non-existent disposition, and is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed, and the total costs shall be borne by the defendant pursuant to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, senior judge and public officer;

Judges Lee Dong- State

Judges Lee Jae-soo