1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who operates a gas station in Yangsan City B, and the Defendant is a corporation established pursuant to Article 25-2 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”).

B. On December 8, 2014, the inspector belonging to the Defendant Yong-Nam Headquarters for the collection of petroleum products samples and the inspection conducted a collection and inspection of petroleum products samples at three places, after storing vehicles inside the mobile-sale vehicle located in the C gas station.

C. On December 18, 2014, the head of Young-nam Headquarters notified the Plaintiff of the result of the quality inspection of petroleum products and the result of the quality inspection of petroleum products and the fact that the sample number No. 5 is a fake petroleum product that combines about 13% of other petroleum products (e.g., oil, etc.) into a car transit, and is a violation of Article 29(1)1 of the Petroleum Business Act.

On December 29, 2014, the Yangsan market and the Plaintiff’s filing of an objection filed a complaint by notifying the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would impose an administrative disposition of “three months of business suspension or KRW 100 million” on the grounds of a violation of Article 29(1)1 of the Petroleum Business Act, demanding submission of an opinion by January 21, 2015. The Plaintiff asserted that the quality inspection of petroleum products is unreasonable on January 5, 2015, and filed an objection.

E. On March 18, 2015, both cities where an administrative disposition is postponed against the Plaintiff are suspended until the first instance judgment is declared on the ground that the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the grounds that the quality inspection of petroleum products is unreasonable, and that the Plaintiff continues to file a lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, fact-finding on the Yangsan market by this court, the whole purport of pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant arbitrarily collected samples and conducted quality inspections without the plaintiff's consent or consent without the presence of oil sources, etc., and only one of the stored goods is "for sale" and not "for removal of oil from heading" to prevent the mixture of products.