The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article

2 The term " October 19, 2019" in the 2nd line shall be read as " October 19, 2018".

6. Parts from 2 to 7 pages shall be dried up in the following manner:

The act of delivering petroleum products to other petroleum retailers without compensation is included in the concept of “supply” under Article 39(1)10 of the Petroleum Business Act and Article 43(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5632, May 14, 2002). According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, even if the Plaintiff ordered gasoline in the name of the gas station in this case and sold the petroleum products to the non-party gas station by ordering it to be delivered to the non-party gas station, the gas station in this case and the non-party gas station are separate gas stations whose place of business differs from the representative, and ② as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s act of delivering all petroleum products is included in the concept of “supply” and that the Plaintiff’s act of delivering petroleum products to the non-party gas station, which is “other oil stations” as well as the Plaintiff’s act of selling them to the non-party gas station, which is prohibited by the Plaintiff’s vehicle transport.

The plaintiff is a reason for the defendant's violation of the method of mobile sale of light oil and oil in the first instance.