1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts, such as the developments leading to the instant disposition, do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged if the entries in Gap evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-3, and Eul evidence 7-9 show the overall purport of the pleadings.

(1) The Plaintiff is a petroleum retailer prescribed in the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”) that operates the gas station (hereinafter “instant gas station”) in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant gas station”) since February 15, 201.

B. On July 11, 2013, the Daejeon Chungcheong Headquarters collected samples of two points via a vehicle in the instant gas station or a small tank delivery vehicle and conducted a quality inspection.

Article 2 subparagraph 10 of the Petroleum Business Act provides that “Franchising petroleum products” shall be “franchising petroleum products” in the latter part of the D vehicle (including 825 liter and 800 liter in the middle of the 1,625 liter tank) which is a small tank delivery vehicle, and the storage space is divided into a tank with 825 liter and 800 liter; hereinafter “sales vehicle” in this case) which is collected from the back of the tank.

B. (1) On August 14, 2013, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 100 million on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 29(1)1 of the Petroleum Business Act according to the result of the above quality inspection.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Chungcheong-do Administrative Appeals Commission on August 28, 2013, but was dismissed on November 19, 2013.

(c) Entry in the attached statutes of the relevant statutes are as follows.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows. The Defendant’s disposition of this case is erroneous.