logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.05.02 2017구합814
영업정지처분취소
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’s status, etc. 1) The Plaintiff is a gas station C in the Jeonbuk-gun, Jeonbuk-gun (hereinafter “instant gas station”).

2) On the instant gas station, petroleum products are moved and sold with vehicles with vehicle number D petroleum products mobile-sale vehicles (hereinafter “instant mobile-sale vehicles”) at the instant gas station.

B. On January 18, 2017, E, an employee of the instant gas station, is a G factory located in the F in the following cities (hereinafter “instant factory”) around 20:30 on January 18, 2017.

) Vehicle number H dump truck (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) with 80 liters, such as oil stored in the instant mobile-sale vehicle

(2) As a result of the quality inspection and distribution inspection, employees of the former Korea Petroleum Quality & Distribution Authority, as seen in the foregoing Section 1 of the same Article, sold light oil as fuel for a motor vehicle, the Korea Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (amended by Act No. 14774, Apr. 18, 2017) was amended by Act No. 14774, and Article 4 of the Addenda to the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (amended by Act No. 14774, Oct. 19, 2017), which was enforced since October 19, 2017, violated Article 39(1)8 of the Petroleum Business Act, and violated Article 39(1)1 of the same Act (hereinafter “Korea Petroleum Business Act”). The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the instant disposition of the instant violation of Article 39(1)10 of the Petroleum Business Act (hereinafter “Defendant 10 of the Petroleum Business Act”) on the ground that it violated Article 39(1)10)3 of the Petroleum Business Act.

2. The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on March 17, 2017.

arrow