1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a gas station with the trade name called C gas station in Busan-gun.

B. Around 14:00 on October 16, 2017, employees of the Yong-Nam headquarters conducted a quantitative inspection (hereinafter “instant inspection”) twice on the mobile-sale vehicle for the delivery of oil owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant mobile-sale”) and conducted a quantitative inspection on two occasions (hereinafter “instant inspection”). In using the 100 L base tank, the measuring instruments used for the 100 L base tank 【 750 meters away from the measuring instruments used for the 【 750 meters away.

(one time -900 - 2 times -800 c).

On October 27, 2017, the Institute notified the Defendant of the result of the instant inspection (verification as to whether the product falls short of the fixed quantity).

On November 7, 2017, the Defendant issued a prior notice on an administrative disposition to the Plaintiff, and received opinions from the Plaintiff on November 21, 2017, and issued a disposition of imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 20,000,000 in lieu of an order to suspend business on the ground that the Plaintiff sold heavy oil to the Plaintiff, which falls short of the net quantity, out of the used car, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1 through 4 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the whole purport of pleading, and whether the disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In full view of the fact that the non-existence of the grounds for disposition did not damage or manipulate the main taxable seal of this case after the instant inspection, the results of the inspection conducted by an institution other than the Institute have occurred within the permissible range of vehicles, and that there is a defect in the method of inspection by the Institute for the main taxable substance of a mobile-sale vehicle, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful without any grounds. (2) Although the period of validity of the instant main taxable substance was expired, the Plaintiff did not cause shortage of quantity by malicious means, such as intentionally manipulating the main taxable substance.