과징금부과처분취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing the penalty surcharge against the Plaintiff on December 5, 2017 is revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. The Defendant issued a prior notice of the administrative disposition on November 16, 2017, on December 5, 2017, on the basis of the notice of the result of the case handling by the chief of the Agsan Police Station that “the Plaintiff manufactured and sold fake petroleum products and thus violated Article 29(1)1 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “the Petroleum Business Act”), which was mixed with light oil in light of the quality and distribution inspection of the petroleum products sold by the Plaintiff from the Daejeon Chungcheongnam Headquarters operated by the Plaintiff, and issued a disposition to impose a penalty surcharge of KRW 50 million in lieu of a half of the business suspension order reduced by 1.5 months (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that he had not manufactured fake petroleum products by drinking oil and light oil together with the auxiliary tank, and even if so, it was manufactured by drinking through the auxiliary tank in which oil remains. As a result, fake petroleum products were manufactured.
Even if the plaintiff does not intentionally manufacture fake oil, there is no reason for the disposition of this case.
B. On March 13, 2017, the Plaintiff delivered 500 liters via a mobile-sale vehicle C at the instant gas station to a mushroom cultivator operated by D. In accordance with D’s instructions, the Plaintiff oil around 300 to 400 liters during the mushroom cultivation season, and oil remaining 100 to 200 liters in the auxiliary tank (hereinafter “instant auxiliary tank”).
A mushroom cultivation disinfection equipment (only for transit) is connected with a oil tank with a capacity of 1,000 liters, and the auxiliary tank of this case is not connected with a mushroom cultivation disinfection equipment and pipes with a capacity of 400 literss, and is installed outside separately.
On December 3, 2016, the Plaintiff.