logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.05.25 2016구합1827
사업정지처분취소청구의 소
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. The Plaintiff is operating a gas station with the trade name “C” in Gunsan City B (hereinafter “instant gas station”).

B. On June 15, 2016, the Daejeon Chungcheong Headquarters confirmed that the Plaintiff sold oil, etc. to D cargo vehicles, as fuel, at the instant gas station, as a result of the quality and distribution inspection of the gas station in this case, and notified the Defendant of the result thereof on June 28, 2016.

C. Accordingly, on July 19, 2016, the Defendant: (a) Article 39(1)8 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”); and (b) Article 16 [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act to the Plaintiff.

2. Pursuant to paragraph (c)(e)(e), 45 days of business suspension (hereinafter “instant disposition”) was imposed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In the instant gas station, the Plaintiff’s employee, not the Plaintiff, was unaware of the tort committed by his employee, and the Plaintiff fulfilled his duty of care, such as thoroughly educating that he should supply and sell petroleum suitable for each vehicle. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful. 2) The Plaintiff’s employee did not violate any of the laws and regulations so far while operating the gas station in this case. The instant case was merely a violation of the laws and regulations. The Enforcement Rule of the Petroleum Business Act [Attachment 1] limits the discretion of the administrative agency to the effect that the Plaintiff’s employee violated the superior law by restricting the discretion of the administrative agency, and considering the Plaintiff’s economic condition, etc., the instant disposition was an abuse of discretionary power in violation of the proportionality.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. In order to achieve administrative purposes, sanctions against violation of administrative laws and regulations are based on the objective facts of violation of administrative laws and regulations.

arrow