과징금부과처분취소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. On July 29, 2016, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 100 million on the Plaintiff.
Of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning “(c) determination of the existence of the instant disposition” in the part concerning “1. 1’s lawfulness of the instant disposition” is the part to the 6th threeth sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance. Until now, “petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act” in the 2nd five to 6th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as “former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (amended by Act No. 14774, Apr. 18, 2017)” in the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, the determination of whether the relevant legal doctrine has violated the scope of discretionary power by examining and balancing the relevant act of disposal and the degree of infringement upon public interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17079, Apr. 17, 201).
(2) Article 17(1) [Attachment 2] of the Act provides that “The standards and criteria for imposing penalty surcharges” shall be determined based on the following factors: (a) although an order is issued under the law, in light of the content and purport of the delegation provision of the parent law, and the principle of excessive prohibition under the Constitution and the principle of equality; (b) even if a violation of the same type is committed, the amount and period of such violation; (c) the degree of social criticism; (d) the circumstances punished by another Act due to the violation; (d)