1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Korean Institute of Education and Evaluation shall be revoked.

2...

1. The part of the reasoning of the court of first instance, i.e., “the reason why the disposition was taken” and “the legitimacy of the lawsuit against the Defendant Minister of Education” and the part concerning “judgment on the claim against the Defendant Institute of Korean Curriculum Evaluation and Planning” as stated in the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., Articles 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, each of them is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

2. We examine the plaintiffs' ex officio determination of the claim against the defendant Korean Institute of Curriculum Evaluation and Planning prior to the determination of the plaintiffs' ex officio determination of the claim.

When an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall lose its validity and shall no longer exist, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition shall be unlawful because it has no interest in the lawsuit.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16879 Decided April 29, 2010, etc.). However, according to the overall purport of the statement and oral argument set forth in subparagraph 18 by Eul, the Korea Institute of Education, the Evaluation and Planning of the Korea Institute, after filing an appeal, may recognize the fact that the instant disposition against the Plaintiffs was revoked ex officio on November 20, 2014.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant disposition was illegal as against the disposition that had not been extinguished.

3. Therefore, in the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiffs' claim part against the defendant Korean Institute of Curriculum is revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' appeals against the defendant Korean Institute of Curriculum are dismissed, the plaintiffs' appeals against the defendant Minister of Education are all dismissed, the plaintiffs and the defendant Institute of Korean Institute of Curriculum bear the burden pursuant to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the costs of appeal between the plaintiffs and the defendant Minister of Education should be borne by the defendant Institute of Korean Institute of Curriculum, and the costs of appeal