beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From February 23, 2015, the Plaintiff is running a petroleum sales business with the trade name “C gas station” in the Pulsung City B.
B. On February 25, 2016, a public official in charge of the headquarters in the Seoul Metropolitan Area has conducted a quantitative inspection on two main abandoned vehicles of the instant gas station. On March 2, 2016, the public official in charge of the headquarters in the Korea Petroleum Quality & Distribution Authority confirmed that the main flow of the D mobile-sale vehicle for the purpose of delivery of oil (hereinafter “instant mobile-sale vehicle”) falls short of 2,350 square meters in the volume of 100 L, and notified the Defendant of the above fact on March 2, 2016.
C. Accordingly, on March 4, 2016, the Defendant issued a prior notice of disposition to the Plaintiff, and submitted a written opinion from the Plaintiff on March 17, 2016, and on April 4, 2016, issued a two-month disposition of business suspension (hereinafter “instant disposition”) in accordance with Articles 13(3)8 and 39(1)2 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”) and Article 16 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was engaged in sales below the net quantity.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence No. 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. On November 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) he was delivered with the instant mobile-sale vehicle around the end of the instant control date; (b) operated the instant mobile-sale vehicle two to three times; (c) suspended the operation of the vehicle by laying the oil tank for vehicle inspection; and (d) did not intentionally operate the vehicle; and (c) did not have any error in the flow meter; and (d) did not focus on the degree of the violation; (c) the amount of profit the Plaintiff earned due to the sale below the fixed quantity was not 86,400 won; (d) the Plaintiff completed the repair of the instant mobile-sale vehicle without delay after the control of the instant case; and (e) the disposition of the instant case.