1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From October 18, 2010, the Plaintiff is a person who operates C gas stations located in Daisan-si B (hereinafter “instant gas stations”).

B. At around 13:00 on April 3, 2013, when the Institute and the Dosan Police Station jointly controlled fake petroleum products, they collected samples, such as automobile transit and oil, from the storage tank of the gas station in this case and the mobile-sale vehicles located at the construction site of the Jinsan Complex, which were ordered by the Plaintiff, and conducted the quality inspection. As a result, other petroleum products (e.g., oil, etc.) were determined as fake petroleum products which are mixed with about 95% of the samples collected from the above mobile-sale vehicles.

C. On June 4, 2013, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 100 million on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 14(1)1 of the Petroleum Business Act on the ground that “the Plaintiff kept and sold fake petroleum products mixed with other petroleum products in light of Article 29(1)1 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”), but the Plaintiff did not pay the said penalty surcharge. As the Plaintiff did not pay the penalty surcharge, the Defendant revoked the imposition of the said penalty surcharge pursuant to Article 14(5) of the Petroleum Business Act on July 4, 2013, and accordingly, Article 13(1)12 of the Petroleum Business Act and Article 16 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

12)(b)(2) has been subject to a disposition of business suspension for three months (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is entitled to Article 16-1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Petroleum Business Act.

In addition, there are the following grounds for mitigation as stipulated in paragraph, and in addition, the Plaintiff was not selling fake petroleum products in bad faith, but was a number of times, and in all related criminal cases, it is difficult to distinguish both the time and the mistake and to economically make it difficult for the Plaintiff to do so.