beta
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 engaged in automobile fuel retail business (gas filling for oil and vehicles) under the trade name, which is called “C gas station” (hereinafter “instant gas station”) in Gangseo-gun, Gangwon-gu.
B. On October 27, 2016, as indicated in the following table, the Institute collected samples of 10 points at the gas station in the instant case. As a result of the inspection, the automobile diesel (number 10) collected from a storage tank (hereinafter “instant tank”) with a capacity of 8,000 litress in the storage tank of the gas station in the instant case, was combined with approximately 5% of other petroleum products, such as oil, etc. on the automobile diesel, and was identified as “fake petroleum products” under Article 2 subparag. 10 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”).
1 Whether the product name of the place where the sample number is to be collected is the product name of the manufacturer, 1 main fuel of the storage tank No. 1, 6 storage tank light oil of the storage tank No. 1, 6 storage tank light oil of the 2 main fuel for the vehicle, 7 main organic organic light oil of the 3 main fuel, 3 mobile-sale vehicle quality conformity 8 mobile-sale vehicle light oil of the 4 main diesel light oil for the vehicle for the vehicle 9 mobile-sale vehicle light oil of the 5 main diesel light oil of the vehicle for the vehicle 10 storage tank light oil of the 5 main diesel light oil for the vehicle.
C. On November 7, 2016, the President of the Gangwon-do Institute knew the Defendant that the sample No. 10 collected from the gas station in this case was determined as fake products, and that the sample was determined as fake petroleum products in the reinspection following the Plaintiff’s objection, and that the Defendant was determined as fake petroleum products in the reinspection on December 5, 2016.
Accordingly, on March 16, 2017, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 50,000 on the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff violated Article 29(1)1 of the Petroleum Business Act.”
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).