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.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff and his spouse B (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Plaintiff, etc.”) completed their respective business registration with respect to the “C gas station” located in Gwangju City G (hereinafter referred to as the “instant gas station”), and B, with respect to the “D gas station” located in Gwangju City H, respectively.

B. On October 11, 2018, the president of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Southern Headquarters notified the Defendant on October 19, 2018 of the fact that “the fact that the Plaintiff, etc. violated the method of operation of the gas station by providing the Plaintiff, etc. with a vehicle (transport equipment) exceeding the load capacity of 31 weeks (from March 12, 2018 to March 18, 2018) from 31 weeks (from March 12, 2018 to March 18, 2018) from 31 weeks (from July 30, 2018 to August 5, 2018).”

C. On January 31, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 7,500,000 on the Plaintiff, etc. on the ground that the instant supply constitutes a violation of Article 39(1)10 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant gas station and D gas station are operated by the Plaintiff, etc. in fact by the absence of the grounds for disposition. For convenience, the instant gas station and D gas station were divided into the oil station and D gas station into the oil station, and the petroleum products that the instant gas station collectively ordered to the oil station into the oil station and D gas station, and they were processed by entering and shipping only on documents.

This is merely an internal transportation procedure between gas stations belonging to the same corporation, and does not constitute “supply” under Article 39(1)10 of the Petroleum Business Act and Article 43(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Petroleum Business Act.

Moreover, Plaintiff .