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 running a petroleum sales business with the trade name “A gas station” in Scheon-si B.

B. On February 20, 2017, C, an employee of the Plaintiff, sold petroleum to the E Farming Cooperative (hereinafter “instant mobile-sale vehicle”) located at the E Farming Cooperative D (F)’s place of business, using G-sale vehicle (hereinafter “instant mobile-sale vehicle”). At the same time, C, an employee of the North Korean Headquarters of the Seoul metropolitan area, the Institute, from the control of marin, collected petroleum samples from the fuel tank of the instant machinery (hereinafter “instant samples”), and requested quality inspection by itself.

C. On February 23, 2017, the director general of the Seoul metropolitan area North Korea Institute notified the Defendant of “The sample of this case is a fake petroleum product provided for in Article 2 subparag. 10 of the Petroleum Business Act, since other petroleum products (e.g., oil, etc.) are mixed with about 20% on the automobile diesel.”

On March 2, 2017, the Defendant issued a prior notice that he/she would suspend the business for three months or impose a penalty surcharge of KRW 100 million pursuant to Article 13(3)8 or 14 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”) on the ground that he/she violated Article 39(1)8 of the said Act by selling oil, including the instant machinery’s fuel, to the Plaintiff. After reviewing the Plaintiff’s opinion, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 50 million on March 27, 2017 pursuant to Article 14(1)3 of the Petroleum Business Act on March 27, 2017.

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【Disposition of this case’s ground for recognition】 Facts without any dispute, Gap’s evidence No. 1, Eul’s evidence No. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case should be revoked on the grounds that the disposition of this case is unlawful on the following grounds.

1. The Plaintiff’s employee did not remove the light oil remaining in the street of the instant mobile-sale vehicle without properly removing it.