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 May 24, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the petroleum retail business (hereinafter “C gas station”) with the trade name “C gas station (D”)” at the place of business of Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu. Since that time, the Plaintiff operated the gas station (hereinafter “instant gas station”).

The Plaintiff, while operating the gas station of this case, has been selling its delivery using the cargo vehicles (E; hereinafter “the instant vehicle”) with three mobile storage tanks installed.

B. On December 16, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the registration of the Plaintiff’s petroleum retail business as of December 30, 2016 pursuant to Article 39(1)2 and 4 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”) and attached Table 1 of Article 16 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act was revoked.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The Disposition in this case is without dispute, Gap evidence 1, evidence 2-1, 4-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) At the time of regulating the violation of Article 39(1)2 of the Petroleum Business Act, oil sold through the instant vehicle was not recovered as the mobile storage tank of the instant vehicle, and whether it constitutes a sale below the fixed quantity of oil in violation of the Petroleum Business Act should be measured and determined by all the pipes connected to the recovery device, but such procedure was not followed, and the Plaintiff did not accurately specify the oil transfer below the fixed quantity. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff violated Article 39(1)2 of the Petroleum Business Act by selling below the fixed quantity out of the used oil, and the Plaintiff did not have installed the recovery device on the instant vehicle only when it was controlled. Thus, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the recovered device was installed on the instant vehicle.