1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional parts, thereby citing this in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A person shall be appointed.

D. On March 23, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. On October 27, 2017, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling ordering revocation of the instant disposition on the ground that “The instant disposition was unlawful as it was based on the Plaintiff’s business failure prior to December 23, 2005, on the ground that it was unlawful at the time of the instant disposition.” In the administrative appeal, the Plaintiff’s additional assertion that “the Defendant did not receive business compensation” constitutes an addition or modification of the grounds for disposition. As long as it was confirmed that the Plaintiff had operated the instant business at the instant place prior to December 23, 2005, on the ground that it was unlawful.”

A person shall be appointed.

2. When the contents of an administrative appeal ruling on the legitimacy of a lawsuit do not order a disposition agency to revoke the disposition, but a ruling agency voluntarily revokes the disposition, the disposition concerned shall be naturally revoked and extinguished without going through a separate administrative disposition based on the ability to form such a ruling.

(see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu17131, Apr. 24, 1998). However, the fact that the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission and received a decision to revoke the instant disposition on Oct. 27, 2017 is as seen earlier, the instant disposition was naturally revoked and extinguished without the Defendant’s separate administrative disposition.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the instant disposition is unlawful as it is subject to an administrative disposition that does not exist.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is brought.