The act of an employee of a gas station after mixing the light oil with the actual waterways, the act of selling it with such knowledge, and the reason for revocation of permission for petroleum selling business or business suspension.

If an employee of a gas station knowingly sells gasoline after mixing it with the actual gasoline, the gas station operator does not produce the mixed gasoline for the purpose of selling it, but sells it through the store employee, so it constitutes a reason for revocation of permission for petroleum sales or suspension of business under Articles 13(3)6, 13(1)10, and 22(2) of the Petroleum Business Act.

Petroleum Business Act Articles 13(3)6, 13(1)10, 22(2) of the Petroleum Business Act

Supreme Court Decision 88Nu1738 delivered on March 14, 1989

Haju Petroleum Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Lee Dong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu169 delivered on December 24, 1987

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in light of the provisions of Article 13(3)6 and Article 13(1)10 of the Petroleum Business Act (amended by May 12, 1986), which was in force at the time of gasoline sale, the court below acknowledged that, even if pseudo petroleum products were sold or stored, where pseudo petroleum products were not sold or stored, permission for petroleum retail business cannot be revoked if they were not for sale purposes without recognizing that they were pseudo petroleum products, and upon considering the macroscopic evidence, the non-party 1, an employee of the plaintiff company, opened the tank in which the vehicle owned by the plaintiff company, opened the tank in which it was loaded and injected into the storage tank and opened the tank in which the tank was loaded into the tank in which the gasoline tank was loaded, connected with the number of vehicles, and suspended immediately, but it is difficult to view that the plaintiff company's disposition of this case was unlawful for the purpose of selling the gasoline for the normal purpose of selling the gasoline only by negligence.

2. However, according to Articles 13(3)6, 13(1)10, and 22(2) of the Petroleum Business Act, the act of producing or selling pseudo petroleum products for the purpose of selling them, or storing, loading, or transporting pseudo petroleum products with the knowledge that they are pseudo petroleum products for the purpose of selling them constitutes grounds for revocation or suspension of the permission for the petroleum selling business. According to the facts established in the judgment below and the evidence No. 15-17 (Interrogation of Suspect) without any dispute, Nonparty 1, an employee of the Plaintiff company, was aware that he was engaged in the business of injecting and selling oil at the oil station and who is engaged in the business of in the business of injecting and selling oil with its actual number of gasoline, but such mixed gasoline was sold to the driver of a vehicle for general consumers after receiving 5,700 won a normal gasoline price per 10 liter.

Therefore, although the Plaintiff Company did not produce gasoline mixed with the above light oil for the purpose of selling it, it is nothing more than selling it through its store employees (see Article 16 of the Commercial Act), and therefore, it cannot be said that the lower court erred in its judgment by interpreting the above provisions of the Petroleum Business Act and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. However, even if the Plaintiff’s act of selling the above falls under Article 22(2) of the Petroleum Business Act, the Plaintiff asserts that the revocation of permission for petroleum selling business on the ground thereof is a disposition exceeding the discretionary scope. In light of the record, it is reasonable to view that the revocation of permission for petroleum selling business is a abuse of discretionary power, considering the circumstance where the mixed gasoline was produced and the content and degree of the act of violating the above mixed gasoline, etc., the lower court need to further

4. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-seok (Presiding Justice)