과징금부과처분취소
1. The Defendant’s imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 7,500,000 against the Plaintiff on June 29, 2018 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff operates a mutual gas station with the trade name called “C gas station” in Sinsisi (hereinafter “instant gas station”) and operates a petroleum sales business.
B. On February 21, 2018, the Gangwon Institute headquarters inspected the quality and distribution of petroleum products with respect to the gas stations in the instant case. On June 15, 2017, the Plaintiff discovered that the Plaintiff sold petroleum to Nonparty D, a general agent (hereinafter “instant sales”).
C. On June 29, 2018, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 7.5 million on the Plaintiff on the ground that Article 39(1)10 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”) and Article 43(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are the grounds for disposition.
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry in Gap’s 1 through 11 evidence (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was entirely unaware of the fact that the Plaintiff sold petroleum to a general agency at the time of the instant sales act, and the instant disposition was unlawful on the grounds that the Plaintiff was not aware of it.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;
C. Determination 1) Since sanctions imposed on a violation of an administrative law are imposed upon the objective fact that it is a violation of an administrative law to achieve the administrative purpose, it does not require any intention or negligence of the violator. However, the same does not require any justifiable reason that makes it impossible to cause the violator’s failure to perform his/her duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 75Nu255, Sept. 14, 1976; 2002Du5177, Sept. 2, 2003; 2010Du6700, Dec. 24, 2014). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the foregoing legal doctrine does not require any health care unit, the evidence examined earlier, and the overall purport of arguments as stated in the evidence No. 13 and evidence No. 14.