logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.07.18 2017구합107505
과징금부과처분 및 공표처분 취소
Text

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the claim for revocation of the publication disposition shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

Reasons

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is running a petroleum retail business in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter referred to as the “instant gas station”).

On April 7, 2017, the Daejeon Chungcheong Headquarters: (a) confirmed that the vehicle was supplied with approximately KRW 7,000 of oil, such as oil from the gas station in this case, using a modified vehicle loaded with the FRP through the FRP for three months from February 2017; and (b) notified the Defendant on July 31, 2017, to the effect that the gas station was sold as fuel for the vehicle.

On August 2, 2017, in violation of Article 39(1)8 of the former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (amended by Act No. 14774, Apr. 18, 2017; hereinafter “former Petroleum Business Act”), the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the prior disposition that he/she would sell light oil as fuel of the vehicle and present his/her opinion on the disposition of suspension of business for three months or a penalty surcharge of KRW 100 million.

On August 21, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to impose penalty surcharges of KRW 50,00,00 in lieu of suspension of business pursuant to attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), Article 39-2 of the former Petroleum Business Act, and Article 46-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Petroleum Business Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 277, Oct. 19, 2017; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the former Petroleum Business Act”) on the Plaintiff, taking into account the Plaintiff’s “the first violation was committed by the Plaintiff and the exemplary violation of petroleum sales business for at least five years,” “the Plaintiff wishes to be punished by penalty surcharges,” etc.

(1) The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Daejeon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on November 27, 2017.

arrow