The case holding that the revocation of permission for petroleum retail business is lawful on the ground that substances, such as gasoline, clren, and Toluene, are mixed.

If a mixture of substances, such as bee, kylene, and Toluene, was found to have been stored and sold by a petroleum retailer with knowledge that it is pseudo petroleum products, barring special circumstances, if the form, method, and scale of violation of laws and regulations, the impact on the general society, and property loss suffered by a petroleum retailer due to the cancellation of permission, etc., the administrative agency did not err in the infringement of laws and regulations, even though it did not abuse or deviate from its discretionary authority.

Articles 13 and 22 of the Petroleum Business Act

Kim Jong-ro

The Governor of Gyeonggi-do

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The revocation of permission for the petroleum selling business made by the Defendant on November 21, 1987 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

The court costs are assessed against the defendant.

3. In the event that: (a) evidence No. 1-1 (Revocation of Permission); (b) evidence No. 8-1 (written confirmation of extraction of samples); (b) evidence No. 9 (written notification); (c) No. 10-1 (Re-inspection Request); (b) No. 12-3; and (c) No. 13-4 (Report on Results of Inspection; and (d) No. 14-4 (Report on Results of Hearing) of the above Act were applied to the head of the competent office for the same purpose as the above-mentioned petroleum retail business after obtaining permission from the defendant on Oct. 15, 1986; and (b) No. 2-1 (written confirmation of extraction of samples); and (c) the Plaintiff’s request to the head of the competent office for inspection of non-party 2-month products; and (d) the Plaintiff’s request for inspection of non-party 1-month products to conduct re-inspection using the same method as the above-mentioned petroleum retail business; and (d) No. 14. 7-1-2-month samples samples samples.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff sold gasoline supplied by public funds as it is, and that he did not sell gasoline mixed with gasoline at all. On August 10, 1987, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s act of selling gasoline, which was collected from the above ordinary gasoline tank, took place in order to clean gasoline without any oil in the above gas station on August 10, 1987, and that it was difficult to supply gasoline to the above gas station at around 02:30, the Plaintiff’s act of selling the above diesel truck without any change in its nature, which is an employee of the above oil station, did not constitute a disposition of cancellation of permission for the above ordinary gasoline tank’s business, and that the Plaintiff’s act of selling the above gasoline is not a disposition of cancellation of permission for the above general petroleum products without any change in its composition, and thus, the Defendant asserted that the above act of selling petroleum products without any change in its content should not be a disposition of cancellation of permission for the above general petroleum products without any change in its content, and that it should not be a disposition of cancellation of permission for any other petroleum products without any change in the Plaintiff’s.

Article 13 (3) 6 of the Petroleum Business Act (amended by Act No. 3839, May 12, 1986) provides that "when the plaintiff's main ingredients are subject to the above paragraph (1) 5 through 10-1" as one of the grounds for revocation of permission. Paragraph (1) 10 of the same Article provides that "when the plaintiff violated the provisions of Article 22" as one of the grounds for revocation of permission or new refinery facilities. Article 22 (2) of the same Act provides that "any person is manufactured by mixing petroleum products with petrochemicals or mixing them with other petrochemicals for the purpose of selling them, and that "no person shall store, load, or transport them with the knowledge that the plaintiff's main ingredients are pseudo petroleum products for the purpose of selling them," and that the plaintiff's act of collecting gasoline can be acknowledged as "no more than 2 of the plaintiff's general purpose of this case's violation of the law, such as the fact that the plaintiff's general purpose of collecting gasoline can be asserted as a result of the analysis of the above fact-finding.

Thus, the defendant's revocation disposition of this case is legitimate, so the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim So-ho (Presiding Judge)