1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) adding “F has committed an act in custody of fake petroleum products as a petroleum retailer” in front of “The Petroleum Business Act” of the fourth half of the judgment of the court of first instance; (b) adding “F has committed an act in custody of fake petroleum products as a petroleum retailer; (c)” of the second half of the second half of the second half as “ May 30, 2017”; and (d) “a case in which the measures under Article 22(1) are violated” of “a case in which the measures under Article 22(1) of the 8.10 second half of the 10 second half” as “a case in which fake petroleum products are manufactured, imported, stored, transported, stored, stored, or sold in violation of Article 29(1)1 of the 12.” Thus, the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance other than adding “the following additional determination” as to the Plaintiff’s assertion emphasized or added in this court.

2. Additional determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Mobile petroleum selling vehicles (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) kept fake petroleum products (mixative oil with approximately 5% of other petroleum products, such as light oil, etc.) on which the instant disposition was based.

(2) Article 8 of the Petroleum Business Act provides that “F shall not be deemed to have been used for petroleum retail business, but only for the purpose of supplying or leaving.” Therefore, F shall not be a petroleum retailer’s position but merely for the purpose of storing fake petroleum products as a consumer.” The purpose of Article 8 of the Petroleum Business Act is to prevent abuse of the status succession for evasion of sanctions, and Article 8 of the Petroleum Business Act provides that “F shall not be deemed to have committed a violation of the Petroleum Business Act and shall not be the purpose of evading sanctions against the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff, such as actively cooperating in the instant lawsuit.”

Therefore, F’s instant disposition cannot be taken against the Plaintiff who succeeded to F’s status as a petroleum retailer on the ground of the instant violation.

B. Judgment 1. Gap evidence 9.