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 reasons for this part of the disposition are as follows: (a) the second part of the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”) “(hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Petroleum Business Act”); and (b) the third part “from the Central Administrative Appeals Commission” to “the Central Administrative Appeals Commission” to “the Central Administrative Appeals Commission” to “the Administrative Appeals Commission”, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The background leading up to the mixture of light oil in the instant tank via which no grounds for disposition exist, and the transit vehicle B around October 28, 2015 (hereinafter “instant transit vehicle”).

ii)A D, D, etc. D, operated by C, while leaving the tank of this case 12,00 liters via the tank of this case (hereinafter referred to as “instant, etc.”)

B. On the other hand, E, an employee of the Plaintiff, moved the transit vehicle to a sloping place in order to get the remaining oil remaining in the instant transit vehicle into a sloping place. On the wind to get off the transit vehicle, it is deemed that the said C was connected with the oil tank connected to the instant tank, and without properly verifying it, it is mixed with the oil tank of this case by entering the tank of this case, which is connected with the oil tank of this case.

In light of such circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff manufactured fake petroleum products provided for in Article 2 subparag. 10 of the Petroleum Business Act with the mixture of oil oil in the instant tank transit, and even if the mixture oil of the instant tank constitutes fake petroleum products, the Plaintiff kept and sold it without awareness of fake petroleum products, and thus, cannot be deemed as violating Article 29(1) subparag. 1 of the Petroleum Business Act.

Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case is nonexistent.