1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a petroleum retailer as prescribed by the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”) that operates “C” in Echeon-si.

B. On November 26, 2015, the Chungcheong Headquarters collected samples from the home-ro vehicles of the said gas station (hereinafter in this case) and conducted quality inspections, and confirmed that other petroleum products, such as one car sample, were mixed with about 15% fake petroleum products.

C. On January 7, 2016, the Defendant: (a) applied Articles 13(3)8, 13(1)12, and 14(1) of the Petroleum Business Act; and (b) Article 16 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act; and (c) issued a disposition suspending the business against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 29(1)1 of the Petroleum Business Act by manufacturing and storing fake petroleum products with respect to the Plaintiff on January 7, 2016.

The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed on March 30, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Class A No. 1 (Evidence No. 2) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's assertion is merely a mixture of oil oil loaded in the rear shooting room due to the defect in the tank of this case's home log vehicle in which samples were collected at the time of the absence of the grounds for disposition, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff manufactured fake petroleum products. 2) According to the evidence No. 1, which is an illegal disposition of this case, in the process of the procedure, the plaintiff was stated as "violation of prohibition of manufacturing fake petroleum products, etc." in the column for disposition reason, and the plaintiff was not clearly aware of the grounds and reasons for the disposition of this case.

Therefore, the instant disposition is illegal as it violates Articles 21 and 23 of the Administrative Procedures Act.

3 When the Institute of Evidence Collection and Distribution collects samples as above, it collects samples in a state of intimidation and coercion by the plaintiff D at the time of collecting samples.