logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.10.24 2018구합103845
과징금부과처분취소청구
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established for the purpose of oil wholesale and retail business, and incidental business related thereto, and the gas station B is a gas station in the old City C.

B. On April 10, 2018, D, an employee of the Plaintiff, supplied E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) at the construction site of the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), transit 235 L (hereinafter “instant transit”), and the supplier drafted a trading list as B/L to E.

C. On April 10, 2018, the Daejeon Sejong District Headquarters conducted a quality and distribution inspection for the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant inspection”) on the grounds that the Plaintiff sold the instant transit using the name of the gas station and notified the Defendant on April 23, 2018.

On April 26, 2018, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 12 million on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 39(1)10 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). . [Grounds for recognition] without dispute; Gap evidence 1; Eul evidence 1 through 4 (including branch numbers); witness D’s testimony; and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On April 10, 2018, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 misjudgments and legal errors, D, at the request of the staff of the gas station B, who had a usual friendship, delivered the transit of this case to E on behalf of the gas station B, and then received the transit of the same quantity from B gas station on the following day, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have sold the transit of this case to E.

In addition, even if the Plaintiff sold the instant light oil using the name of the Plaintiff’s gas station, Article 39(1)10 of the Petroleum Business Act and Article 43(1)8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act sell petroleum products by an enterprise without qualification for sale.

arrow