1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s penalty surcharge of KRW 100,00,000 against the Plaintiff on August 14, 2013.

1. Details of the instant disposition

A. 1) The Plaintiff is aware of fake petroleum products. Since February 15, 2011, the Plaintiff “C gas station” (hereinafter “instant gas station”) in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Secheon-gu”).

(1) The Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (amended by Act No. 12294, Jan. 21, 2014; hereinafter referred to as the “petroleum Business Act”) in operation.

(ii) around 19:30 on July 11, 2013, the Daejeon Chungcheong Headquarters collected samples of two points via the main or small tank delivery vehicles of the instant gas station and conducted quality inspections.

3) As a result, transit (number 1) collected from the main amusement for motor vehicles was determined as normal petroleum products, but the D vehicle (1,625 liter tank middle of a small tank delivery vehicle) which is a D vehicle (1,625 liter tank, with a partition wall installed in the middle of a small tank tank and 800 liter divided the storage space into a tank with 825 liter and 800 liter.

hereinafter referred to as "sales vehicle of this case"

(B) The Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 100 million on August 14, 2013 on the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff violated Article 29(1)1 of the Petroleum Business Act” on the following grounds: (a) light oil, etc., which is another petroleum product, was mixed with approximately 20% of the oil, etc., which is a fake petroleum product; and (b) 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.”

(2) The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Chungcheongnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission on August 28, 2013, but was dismissed on November 19, 2013. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 3, and evidence Nos. 7 through 9 (each of the entries, including the serial number, the purport of the whole pleadings).

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the instant disposition was made by mistake of facts, or is unlawful by abusing or abusing discretion.