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.

With respect to this case cited by the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasoning of this court is as follows, except for adding the following judgments as to the grounds for which the plaintiff asserts again, and thus, it is identical to the entry of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Eul evidence Nos. 6, the tank of this case is divided into three rooms, but only one main organic facility is not installed for each shooting room. Accordingly, in the case where other petroleum products are loaded and unloaded successively by each shooting room, it would be mixed with the existing other petroleum products remaining in loading and unloading pipes and oil refineries, etc., and it is recognized that there is a need for work to discharge existing petroleum products in loading and unloading pipes, etc. to prevent this.

Plaintiff

The summary of the argument is that the delivery of heating light oil to the tank glass of this case, while loading and unloading pipes for loading and unloading and the existing light oil remaining in the gas station has been sealed in a shooting room where transit is visible. In this case, it is merely a mixture of oil in the shooting room where transit has been actually loaded, and the plaintiff does not manufacture fake petroleum products for the purpose of using them for the vehicle and machinery.

Judgment

Inasmuch as a petroleum product collected at the 3rd shooting room of a tank cromatic vehicle possessed and managed by the Plaintiff was determined as a fake petroleum product, it is presumed that the Plaintiff manufactured a mixture oil for the purpose of using it as fuel for automobiles and vehicles and machinery prescribed by Presidential Decree or allowing it to be used (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu3710, Aug. 13, 191). In light of the following circumstances, based on the evidence revealed by the foregoing, Party A’s evidence is deemed as follows.