logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.11.10 2015구합21412
과징금부과처분취소
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 a person who runs a petroleum retail business under the trade name called “C gas station” in Kimhae-si B (hereinafter “instant gas station”).

B. On March 10, 2015, around 11:25, the Yong-Nam headquarters collected samples from the D tank glass vehicle (in the middle of the 3,000 foot tank, a wall was installed in the middle of the 3,000 foot tank, and conducted quality inspection; hereinafter “instant selling vehicle”). As a result, samples collected from the corresponding storage area were determined as normal petroleum products. However, the automobile transit recovered from the storage area was 5% mixed with other petroleum products.

C. On March 23, 2015, the Defendant is against the director of the Yong-Nam headquarters of the Institute.

On April 27, 2015, after being notified of the results of quality inspections as stated in the port, the Plaintiff issued a penalty surcharge of KRW 50 million pursuant to Article 13(3)8, Article 13(1)12, and Article 14(1)3 of the Petroleum Business Act, Article 17(1) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Petroleum Business Act”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff sold fake petroleum products (such as oil, etc.) mixed with approximately 5% of other petroleum products (hereinafter “instant violation”).” on the ground that “The Plaintiff violated Article 29(1)1 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On May 11, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Standing Committee of Gyeonggi-do. However, the said administrative appeal was dismissed on June 24, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 12 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. This.

arrow