1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is selling the petroleum in the trade name, “Seong Changng Agricultural District Oil station” in Article 2569, Seo-ro, Dong-dong, Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Gangwon-gu.

(hereinafter “instant gas station”). B.

On March 23, 2017, the head of the Gangwon Institute notified the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the result of the quality inspection of petroleum products conducted on the gas stations of this case, and that the sample number 12 (hereinafter “instant petroleum products”) was a mixture of products in which other petroleum products (such as light oil, etc.”) are about 5% in light of automobile diesel, and that they constitute fake petroleum products provided for in Article 2 subparag. 10 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”).

As a result of the result of the collection of sample number for the name of a seller's business establishment, the 11 quality of fake vehicle transit on March 13, 2017, for non-high Scup Nong Agricultural Co., Ltd. and the automobile transit on March 13, 2017, 12 fake petroleum products mobile-sale vehicles (A, followed)

C. On April 17, 2017, the Gangwon Institute Headquarters issued an objection to the quality inspection of petroleum products in the instant gas station upon filing an objection by the Plaintiff.

On April 19, 2017, the Director General of the Gangwon-do Institute notified the Defendant that “The applicant for the objection to the examination does not have any status of keeping the test samples for storage, and the test results conducted by the first test tester and the other test tester that other petroleum products (such as oil, etc.) were combined with approximately 5% of the results of the initial test.”

On July 20, 2017, the Defendant kept fake petroleum products in violation of Article 29(1)1 of the Petroleum Business Act (amended by Act No. 14774, Apr. 18, 2017; hereinafter “former Petroleum Business Act”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff stored fake petroleum products in violation of Article 14(1)3 and Article 13(3)8 of the former Petroleum Business Act” is deemed to be attached to the Plaintiff.