영업정지처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The first instance court’s determination that the instant disposition is lawful, even if all of the evidence presented in the first instance court were examined, is not significantly different from the Plaintiff’s assertion in the first instance court while the Plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the first instance.
The reasoning of the judgment of the court on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the same content as that of paragraph (2). Thus, this court shall refer to the summary of the judgment pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The addition is based on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s act of selling petroleum in short of the net quantity outside of the used oil is not attributable to the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his duty, and that there is no justifiable reason not to charge the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his duty. In addition, the following is added between Section 5 and Section 7 of the judgment of the first instance and the “in light of the foregoing”.
(4) The former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter referred to as the "petroleum Business Act").
(1) Article 42-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Measures Act and the Measurement Act (hereinafter “Meighing Act”).
According to the attached Table 17 of the Enforcement Decree, the maximum permissible error (±0.75%, ± 150 m/20 mar) determined in the main organic verification criteria (±0.5% of the total permissible error (No. 2014-282 of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy’s notification), Chapter 2, see the maximum permissible error (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014-282 of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy’s notification), and 1.5 times again, is deemed to allow the maximum permissible error. In other words, the Plaintiff again fails to reduce the used vehicle exceeding 100 marries, ⑤ sales below the quantity may occur due to the abnormal or heat of storage tanks and pipes connected to the main organic, marcing, and marcing, etc., and thus, re-verification of the alcoholic beverage verification method only due to the operation of the alcoholic beverage.