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.

1. The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with the purport of Gap evidence 1 and Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including the branch numbers where no special indication is made; hereinafter the same shall apply) and all pleadings, and there is no counter-proof.

The Plaintiff is engaged in petroleum retail business while operating the “Criju station” in Daegu-Sast Group B.

B. On October 5, 2018, the Daegu Gyeongbuk Headquarters conducted the quality inspection of petroleum products of the Cju station, and discovered that the petrochemicals, such as gasoline 1 for automobiles, is a mixed product with approximately 10% of other petroleum products, such as hydrocarbon oil, and Toluene, and notified the Defendant of the fact on November 20, 2018, as defined in Article 2 subparagraph 10 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”).

C. As the Plaintiff raised an objection to the result of the quality inspection, the Defendant requested the Institute to re-testing, and the Institute notified the Defendant of “the result of an objection to the quality inspection of petroleum products” with the same content as the result of the initial test after re-examination of samples.

On January 18, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition suspending business operations for three months (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 13 of the Petroleum Business Act and Article 16 [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 29(1)1 of the Petroleum Business Act by manufacturing, etc. fake petroleum products.

E. The statutes related to the instant disposition are as indicated in the attached Form “related statutes.”

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff, who was aware of the existence of the grounds for disposition, was supplied with organic solvents, etc. as a normal product of duty-free oil in D, and was not aware of the fact that it was used in the manufacture of fake petroleum.

On May 2018, the Plaintiff confirmed that the “normal” judgment was made as a result of the component analysis, and began transactions with D.