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 July 30, 2012, the Plaintiff is a petroleum retailer operating “B gas station” (hereinafter “instant gas station”).

B. On November 29, 2013, the Institute collected samples (No. 1: sample number 3; sample number 1, 2, 4, and 8; and sample number 1, 4, and 8) from the gas station in this case on November 29, 2013, and conducted the quality inspection on December 12, 2013, the samples No. 1, 2, 4, and 8 were determined to constitute fake petroleum products provided for in Article 2 subparagraph 10 of the former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (Amended by Act No. 1294, Jan. 21, 2014; hereinafter “former Petroleum Business Act”) and notified the Defendant on January 20, 2014.

C. Accordingly, on February 4, 2014, the Defendant sold fake petroleum products to the Plaintiff, thereby violating Article 29(1) of the former Petroleum Business Act (hereinafter “instant violation”). Accordingly, the Defendant was subject to a disposition suspending the Plaintiff’s sales of fake petroleum products for three months.

On February 12, 2014, the Plaintiff is above C.

The competent district court filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the entry disposition and on October 15, 2014, on the ground of abuse of discretionary power

C. A judgment that revoked the entry disposition was rendered.

(C) The Seoul High Court dismissed the Defendant’s appeal on June 24, 2015.

(Seoul High Court 2014Nu69831) The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

E. The defendant

D. On August 5, 2015, according to the purport of the judgment, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of suspension of business for 1.5 months (from August 19, 2015 to October 2, 2015) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on February 3, 2016.

recognized.