1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. On December 16, 2016, the Defendant’s revocation of registration for petroleum selling business against the Plaintiff.

1. The circumstances leading up to the disposition / 【Evidence without any dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2-1, 4-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. On May 24, 2016, the Plaintiff registered a petroleum retail business with the trade name called “C gas station (D)” at the place of business of Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, Seoul, with its workplace, and thereafter operates the said gas station (hereinafter “instant gas station”).

The Plaintiff, while operating the gas station of this case, was delivered and sold through the trucking vehicle (E; hereinafter “instant vehicle”) with a mobile storage tank installed.

B. On December 16, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the registration of the Plaintiff’s petroleum retail business as of December 30, 2016 pursuant to Articles 13(3)8, 13(1)15, and 39(1)2 and 4 of the former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (Amended by Act No. 1476, Apr. 18, 2017; hereinafter “former Petroleum Business Act”) and Article 16 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (Amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 230, Dec. 26, 2016; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the former Petroleum Business Act”).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). 2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In the following respect, the instant disposition should be revoked on the ground that there is no ground for the disposition. (A) At the time of regulating the violation of Article 39(1)2 of the former Petroleum Business Act, the petroleum sold through the instant vehicle was not recovered to the mobile storage tank of the instant vehicle at the time of regulating the violation of Article 39(1)2 of the former Petroleum Business Act; and whether it constitutes a sale below the fixed quantity of petroleum in violation of the former Petroleum Business Act was measured and determined under the status of the collection device’s pipes connected, but without undergoing such a procedure; however, the Plaintiff did not accurately specify the fixed quantity of petroleum below the fixed quantity, and thus, Article 39(1) of the former Petroleum Business Act was