beta
대전지방법원 2014.11.13 2014구합2104

과징금부과처분취소

Text

1. The imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 50,000,000 against the Plaintiff on January 14, 2014 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the whole purport of the pleadings is added to each entry in Gap evidence 2 to 4 and Eul evidence 2 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply):

(1) The Plaintiff is a petroleum retailer prescribed in the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter referred to as the “petroleum Business Act”) operating the gas station (hereinafter referred to as the “gas station in this case”) in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun.

B. On November 24, 2013, 2011:58, the Nam-gu headquarters collected the storage tank of the gas station in this case, 2000, and 3 points via the vehicle for moving, and conducted the quality inspection.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant inspection”). The light oil (number 26) collected from a mobile oil vehicle (1,500 liter interim of the tank of 1,500 liter and the storage space of 800 liter and 700 liter are installed in the form of dividing it into the tank, and transit and oil oil is coming from light through the main organic connected with one string; hereinafter “the instant vehicle”) was determined as fake petroleum products as referred to in Article 2 subparag. 10 of the Petroleum Business Act, since other petroleum products, oil, etc. are mixed with about 50%.

B. On January 14, 2014, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 50 million on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 29(1)1 of the Petroleum Business Act according to the result of the above quality inspection.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (c)

The attached details of the relevant statutes shall be as specified in the statutes.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., procedural defect) stated that “the fact of the cause of the disposition” was “an act of selling fake petroleum products (al.e., oil) mixed with approximately 50% of other petroleum products on vehicle transit prior to the instant disposition, and the Defendant actually stated that “the fact of the cause of the disposition” was “the act of selling fake petroleum products.”