1. The Defendant’s disposition suspending business against the Plaintiffs on January 3, 2017 is revoked for three months.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs are operating a mutual oil station of D in the south-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Seoul.

B. On June 10, 2016, employees E and F of the Yong-Namnam Regional Headquarters affiliated with the Institute, the Institute collected samples of transit in two storage tanks located in the above gas stations.

C. On June 22, 2016, the Yong-Nam headquarters sent to the Defendant the result of the examination of the above samples, that the diesel samples collected from one tank (hereinafter “instant samples”) were determined as fake petroleum products mixed with oil, etc., and that the Defendant sent the result of the inspection of the quality of petroleum products with the content that the said samples were determined as fake petroleum products.

(hereinafter referred to as “the primary test”) D.

The Plaintiffs, who notified the Plaintiffs of the aforementioned inspection results, expressed their wish to re-examine at the Daejeon Chungcheong Headquarters, and the Defendant notified the Institute of such intent on June 28, 2016.

Accordingly, on July 6, 2016, the Daejeon Chungcheong Headquarters conducted a re-examination of the sample of this case not yet opened with the plaintiffs' participation.

(hereinafter referred to as “re-examination”). On July 13, 2016, the Young-nam Headquarters notified the Defendant of the fact that the instant sample was determined as fake petroleum products in the result of re-examination.

E. According to the above notification, on August 16, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to pay a penalty surcharge of KRW 100 million by September 2, 2016 on the ground that he/she sold fake petroleum products to the Plaintiffs.

hereinafter referred to as "the imposition of penalty surcharge of this case"

(2) The Plaintiffs filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the said disposition of imposing a penalty surcharge on the Cheong-do Administrative Appeals Commission, Chungcheongnam-do. However, on December 12, 2016, the Plaintiffs received the ruling of dismissal of the penalty surcharge.

On January 3, 2017, the Defendant imposed the penalty surcharge on the ground that the Plaintiffs did not pay the said penalty surcharge of KRW 100 million by the payment deadline.