2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

A. On June 7, 2016 and 13th of the same month, the Plaintiff, a person selling “specific high-pressure gas”, etc. under the name of “C” in Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Central District Gas Safety Control Act, supplied Gasan Construction Site, Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D apartment construction site (hereinafter “instant site”) with Gasan Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dasan Construction”).

B. However, public officials belonging to the Seocho-gu Office discovered 11 gas containers (one gas container storage capacity per 5.92 cubic meter, total storage capacity of 65.12 cubic meter) for adjoining gas at the instant site while conducting a safety inspection on the facilities using high-pressure gas at the construction site within its jurisdiction on June 21, 2016, and notified the Defendant of the violation of the High-Pressure Gas Act on July 20, 2016 under the premise that “A person who intends to use high-pressure gas with compressed gas storage facilities exceeding 50 cubic meters, with the storage capacity of 65.12 cubic meters,” under Article 12(1) of the High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act, Article 46(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the High-Pressure Gas Act (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 194, Jul. 1, 2016).

C. Accordingly, on October 7, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 3,200,000 in lieu of 20 days of business suspension on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Articles 13(1), 4(4), 9(1)16, and 9-2(1) of the High-Pressure Gas Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Most of the 11 gas containers discovered at the site of the Plaintiff’s assertion were empty containers, as well as empty containers.