1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff operated a gas station under the trade name, “C gas station” in Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seocheon-si.

(hereinafter “instant gas station”). B.

On October 13, 2015, the Korea Petroleum Quality & Distribution Authority and the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency discovered that “the fact that oil was sold from June 2013 to June 2013 of the instant gas station to a level below 3% of its net quantity and the fact that the container altered for the purpose of selling falling short of its net quantity was installed in the main discharge,” and notified the Defendant of the joint inspection around October 16, 2015 and October 23, 2015.

C. On January 13, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the registration of the instant gas station (gas station) on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 39(1)2 and 4 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”) with respect to the Plaintiff, based on Article 13(3)8 of the Petroleum Business Act.

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) procedural defect defendant notified the plaintiff during November 2015 that the plaintiff should hold a hearing on the instant disposition. However, since the plaintiff was detained at the time, the plaintiff applied for postponement of the hearing. The defendant did not postpone the hearing any longer after the postponement of the hearing once, and closed the hearing procedure without the plaintiff's appearance or submission of opinions, and then made the instant disposition. This is unlawful as it deprived of the plaintiff's opportunity to present his opinion as prescribed by the Administrative Procedures Act. 2) The installation of a domain altered in the main abandonment does not constitute a violation of Article 39 (1) 4 of the Petroleum Business Act.