logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.12.22 2015구합1800
과징금부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 22, 2011, A had completed the registration of petroleum retail business pursuant to Article 10(1) of the former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (amended by Act No. 13085, Jan. 28, 2015; hereinafter “former Petroleum Business Act”), and operated the instant gas station (hereinafter “instant gas station”).

B. On March 30, 2015, the Southern Branch of the Seoul Metropolitan Area discovered the fact that A moved and sold 337-liters via a mobile-sale vehicle in a large truck using a mobile-sale vehicle (hereinafter “instant violation”) from a gold movement director distance in the city of Heung-si on March 16, 2015.

C. On April 20, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired the gas station of this case from A, and subsequently applied for registration of change pursuant to Article 10(3) of the former Petroleum Business Act to the Defendant.

On April 22, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the instant violation and the possibility of administrative disposition related thereto, and subsequently accepted an application for change of petroleum retail business (gas station) pursuant to Articles 10(3) and (5) and 7(1)1 of the former Petroleum Business Act.

Article 39(1)8 of the former Petroleum Business Act; Article 43(1)1 and Article 2 subparag. 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26437, Jul. 24, 2015; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Petroleum Business Act”); Article 2(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 147, Jul. 29, 2015; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule of the Petroleum Business Act”); and on June 12, 2015, the Defendant imposed the Plaintiff a penalty surcharge of KRW 15,00,00 based on attached Table 2; Article 17(1) [Attachment 2] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Petroleum Business Act (hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule of the Petroleum Business Act”).

[Ground of recognition] There is no dispute.

arrow