1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 10, 2013: (a) around 05:10, the Institute discovered that E, as the driver of D dump truck (hereinafter “dump truck”) located in Cump truck located in Cump B (hereinafter “instant gas station”) operated by the Plaintiff, was exposed to directly gasing through the dump truck in the instant gas station (EH0403014; hereinafter “instant dump truck”), and collected samples from each storage tank of the said dump truck and dump truck, and conducted quality inspections.

B. As a result of the inspection of samples in the storage tank of the instant dump truck, the Institute notified the Defendant of the result of the quality inspection conducted on September 26, 2013 and the result of the distribution inspection conducted to the effect that the Plaintiff sold dump oil as fuel for a vehicle, etc., to the same effect as the Defendant, as well as that the Plaintiff sold dump oil as fuel for a vehicle.

C. On December 10, 2013, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 100 million on the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 13(3)8 and 14(1)3, etc. of the Petroleum Business Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 39(1)7 of the former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (amended by Act No. 12294, Jan. 21, 2014; hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”), on the ground that he/she sold light oil as vehicle fuel (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness F's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the main abandonment of this case was destroyed by a typhoon with a storm for three years prior to the Plaintiff’s assertion and covered the Plaintiff’s cover with a coverr with a dump truck. The dump truck’s driver, without the Plaintiff’s permission, is limited to the main abandonment of this case without the Plaintiff’s permission for the purpose of reducing fuel costs.

Therefore, the Plaintiff.