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 reasons for the decision of the court of first instance are the same as the corresponding part of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance. Thus, the pertinent part shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

2. We examine the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit ex officio.

If an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall lose its validity and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition shall be unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

(1) According to the evidence No. 5 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16879, Apr. 29, 2010). According to the evidence No. 5, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the instant disposition was revoked ex officio on April 8, 2011. As such, the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition is against a disposition that does not exist, and is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

3. According to the conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the litigation costs are assessed against the defendant pursuant to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act.