1. The Defendant’s penalty surcharge against the Plaintiff on January 16, 2014 due to a violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, 100,000.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From November 1, 2005, the Plaintiff operated C in Thai-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

(hereinafter “instant gas station”). B.

On February 21, 2013, the Plaintiff, at around 17:30 on February 21, 2013, carried heavy equipment D located in Seosan-si, via the Plaintiff’s employees F and 2.5 tons of oil, and took control over the E parking lot after receiving a report at the time of arrival in the E parking lot, was subject to a quality inspection for approximately 1,500 liters via the oil tank (hereinafter “instant control”), and as a result, it was found that the above light oil is mixed with approximately 10% of oil.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant mixture”). C.

Accordingly, on January 16, 2014, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 100 million pursuant to Article 13(3)8 of the former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (amended by Act No. 12294, Jan. 21, 2014; hereinafter “former Petroleum Business Act”) and Article 17 and attached Table 2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 79, Aug. 12, 2014) on the ground that the Plaintiff manufactured and sold fake petroleum products to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). 【The ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s 1 through 3, 12, Eul’s 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is to revoke the instant disposition in that it is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The Plaintiff did not sell fake petroleum products at the gas station of this case, and did not have ordered F to manufacture and sell the mixture oil of this case, and the control of this case was derived from F’s arbitrary creation of fake petroleum products and making a false report after F made the Plaintiff at his own discretion, and there is no ground for disposition of this case’s disposition. 2) The disposition of this case deviates from or abused discretion.

B. It is as stated in the relevant laws and regulations attached thereto.

C. Judgment 1 of this case