2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff’s status as the Plaintiff is operating a C gas station in B in Naju City.

B. On January 28, 2014, the Institute visited CY to collect samples and determine fake petroleum products, respectively, and collected samples from the gasoline storage tank for motor vehicles, the diesel storage tank for motor vehicles, and the mobile-sale vehicle.

On February 12, 2014, the head of the Ministry of Environment notified the Defendant of the content that the Defendant was determined as a fake petroleum product as defined in Article 2 subparag. 10 of the former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (amended by Act No. 12294, Jan. 21, 2014; hereinafter “former Petroleum Business Act”).

C. On March 14, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition suspending business pursuant to Article 13(3) Subparagraph 8 of the former Petroleum Business Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that he/she manufactured and sold fake petroleum products, such as the foregoing Paragraph (b), to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant violation”) and violated the prohibition of manufacturing, etc. fake petroleum products under Article 29(1) of the former Petroleum Business Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant statutes

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The lack of the grounds for disposition is likely to combine the structure of a mobile-sale vehicle with light oil; ② the Plaintiff’s mobile-sale vehicle currently uses to supply light oil, and supplies light oil only to one military branch; ③ the number of light oil stored in the tank of the mobile-sale vehicle at the time of collecting samples is extremely small, and thus, the Enforcement Rule of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Petroleum Business Act”).