The revocation of permission for petroleum retail business to a gas station operator who sells gasoline or gas with the knowledge that it is mixed with gasoline (affirmative)

If a gas station manager does not have manufactured or purchased fake gasoline but knows that there was any mixing of light oil or light oil in the sales gasoline of the gas station, such so-called petroleum sales business is subject to the revocation of permission or suspension of business as prescribed by the Petroleum Business Act.

Petroleum Business Act Articles 22(2), 13(1)10

Supreme Court Decision 88Nu1721 Decided March 14, 1989

Plaintiff

Gangwon-do et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu1505 delivered on March 24, 1988

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the result of the test and analysis of gasoline collected from the gasoline storage tank installed in the oil station in the plaintiff management's ground of appeal that the plaintiff's ground of appeal found that the plaintiff's ground of appeal was 86 and the plaintiff's ground of appeal that the plaintiff's ground of appeal was mixed with a high-point hydrocarbon compound, etc. in the normal gasoline because the plaintiff's ground of appeal was below 88 of the plaintiff's ground of appeal 86 and it was found that the plaintiff produced similar gasoline for the purpose of sale or knew or could have known that the plaintiff was similar gasoline for the purpose of sale, and it was illegal as the cancellation disposition of the permission was made without any ground of appeal. According to subparagraph 5 of Article 23 of the Fire Services Act, if the person who installed the dangerous goods handling facility violates the conditions of the permission, the permission may be revoked or the suspension of use was ordered for a specified period. However, as seen above, so long as the cancellation disposition of the permission for the plaintiff's ground of appeal is revoked.

2. However, according to the records, the plaintiff's business place, which supplies gasoline, light oil, and light oil to the above gas station, has installed partitions in the tank of oil tanks and has loaded different kinds of oil in a lump sum, and has been injected into the storage tank of the above gas station through one pipe attached to the tank outside the tank, and after supplying the above gas station with other gas stations, the plaintiff's above provision of light oil and light oil is mixed with the plaintiff's gasoline tank, which remains 17 liters, and the plaintiff did not have any error in the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff's act of selling gasoline was unlawful by misunderstanding the purport that the plaintiff's above provision of the Petroleum Business Act was not unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's act of selling gasoline, such as mixing it with other gas stations, and the plaintiff did not have any error in the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff's act of selling gasoline was unlawful.

However, even if the Plaintiff’s above sales act falls under Article 22(2) of the Petroleum Business Act, the Plaintiff asserts that the revocation of the permission for petroleum sales business on the ground thereof is a disposition exceeding the scope of discretion. In light of the records, such as the circumstance and degree of the occurrence of mixed gasoline and the contents and degree of the violation, etc. of the above mixed gasoline, it may be deemed that the revocation of the permission for petroleum sales business is an abuse of discretionary power. Therefore,

3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)