2...

A. From February 2014, the Plaintiff is running the petroleum sales business with the trade name called the gas station in Pyeongtaek-si B (hereinafter “instant gas station”).

B. On November 18, 2014, a public official in charge of the Institute collected samples from a mobile-sale vehicle (E; hereinafter “instant mobile-sale vehicle”) of the instant oil station and conducted quality inspection and distribution inspection by collecting samples from the mobile-sale vehicle of the instant oil station (E; hereinafter “instant mobile-sale vehicle”) in Pyeongtaek-si D, and notified the Defendant of the determination of quality conformity with samples taken from the diesel tank and the oil tank (hereinafter “instant samples”), with samples taken from the main organic tank (hereinafter “instant samples”), which are about 85% mixed with other petroleum products (such as oil, etc.), and the former Petroleum Business Act and alternative fuel (amended by Act No. 13085, Jan. 28, 2015; hereinafter “former Petroleum Business Act”). The Defendant violated Article 2 subparag. 10 of the former Petroleum Business Act, which constitutes a violation of Article 90 of the former Petroleum Business Act’s petroleum business Act’s quantity.

C. Accordingly, on December 5, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of an administrative disposition that “The Defendant would take four-month dispositions of suspension of business pursuant to Article 13(1)12 and 15 of the former Petroleum Business Act on the grounds that the Plaintiff violated Article 29(1)1 of the former Petroleum Business Act (sale of fake petroleum products) and Article 39(1)8 of the same Act [Violation of the load capacity of mobile-sale vehicles (Violation of the load capacity of mobile-sale vehicles)].”

On March 16, 2015, the Defendant issued an order to suspend business operation for four months to the Plaintiff (from March 23, 2015 to May 22, 2015) by reducing the business suspension for two months.