1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The court's explanation about this case is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the part concerning which appeal is made under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) In light of the above legal principles, the first instance court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s assertion that there is no ground to impose the instant disposition is justifiable. The first instance court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s argument that there is no ground to impose the instant disposition is justifiable. The first instance court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition was not based on the grounds alleged in the first instance court while filing an appeal by the Plaintiff is not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court.

If the fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance is written, this Court shall add "this Court" to "the court of first instance".

Part 6 to 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be added as follows.

The plaintiff asserts to the effect that "the plaintiff's employee E has lost oil and caused the violation of this case, and therefore does not fall under Article 39 (1) 8 of the former Petroleum Business Act.

However, the testimony of the first instance court witness E has been continuously educated that E is an employee of the plaintiff and has been engaged in the principal duties for about 18 years as the party to the instant violation, and that it is possible to receive the suspension of business even in the case of oiling light oil on the vehicle due to mistake. It is difficult to easily understand that the act of violating the instant case was committed on the vehicle by mistake and that it is difficult for the inspector to easily understand the record of evidence No. 4 and the entire purport of the pleading in the testimony of the first instance court witness J, taking into account the whole purport of the pleading, immediately after the entry into the crackdown on the instant violation, even if the inspector ceaseding the principal act and confirmed that the fact of oiling on the tank of about 178 litl has been recognized, the inspector immediately arrived at the site.