The burden of proving that there was a special circumstance that the Plaintiff was not aware that gasoline sold under the Plaintiff’s possession management was a pseudo Petroleum product (=the Plaintiff)

(b) The case holding that it is difficult to reverse the above presumption solely on the grounds that the oil station operator was presumed to have kept and sold the oil station with the knowledge of the fact as long as it was determined that the oil station contains high-point petroleum products (e.g., heavy oil), and that there is a possibility of mixing the gasoline with gasoline in the course of oil transport through oil pipelines;

A. In a case where gasoline sold under the Plaintiff’s possession and management is revealed to be pseudo petroleum products, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have sold and stored pseudo petroleum products with the knowledge that it is pseudo petroleum products, and the Plaintiff shall assert and prove that there was a special circumstance that did not recognize it as pseudo petroleum products.

(b) The case holding that it is difficult to reverse the above presumption solely on the grounds that, inasmuch as it was determined that the gasoline contains high-point petroleum products (e.g., heavy oil products) in the gasoline, it is presumed that the gas station operator had kept and sold the gas station with the knowledge of such fact, and that there is a possibility of mixing the gasoline with gasoline in the course of oil transport through oil pipelines.

Article 22(2) of the Petroleum Business Act, Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 88Nu5136 Decided February 14, 1989 (Gong1989, 436) 88Nu461 Decided July 25, 1989 (Gong1989, 1304) 89Nu4000 Decided December 26, 1989 (Gong190, 414)

Gyeonggi Petroleum Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and one other

Chungcheong Market

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu1019 delivered on April 11, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In the event that gasoline sold under the Plaintiff’s possession and management is revealed to be pseudo petroleum products, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have sold and stored pseudo petroleum products with the knowledge that it was pseudo petroleum products, and that there were special circumstances without the awareness that it was pseudo petroleum products, it shall be proved by the Plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu461, Jul. 25, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 88Nu5136, Feb. 14, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 89Nu400, Dec. 26, 1989). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court is justifiable in its determination that the Plaintiff’s first violation of the rules of evidence, such as the lack of permission to use the oil pipelines, is difficult to reverse the judgment below, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) since it was determined that the Plaintiff’s collection of samples from the oil storage tank operated by the Plaintiff included in the pseudo petroleum products, and (b) it was presumed that the Plaintiff sold pseudo petroleum products without the knowledge that it was pseudo products.

The argument is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)