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 who registered a petroleum retail business on October 4, 2004 and operates a gas station (hereinafter “instant gas station”) with the trade name “C gas station” in Chungcheongnam-nam Budget Group B.

B. On May 10, 2016, the former North Korea Institute conducted the quality inspection of samples No. 3 taken from the partitions after a mobile-sale vehicle (D, “the instant vehicle”) located in the instant gas station, and confirmed that approximately 10% of other petroleum products, such as automobile light oil, were mixed. The former North Korea Institute assessed petroleum products stored in the said vehicle as fake petroleum products under Article 2 subparag. 10 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”), and notified the Defendant thereof.

C. On June 8, 2016, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 50 million on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 29(1)1 of the Petroleum Business Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5 evidence, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff intended to move oil remaining in pipes and ices to a shooting room for the prevention of mixing oil before the delivery of oil. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff injected oil to a shooting room through a shooting room and caused the Plaintiff’s intention of mixing oil. As such, the Plaintiff’s mistake does not constitute “fake petroleum products” under Article 2 of the Petroleum Business Act, the Defendant’s disposition is erroneous in interpreting and applying statutes.

Even if the grounds for disposition are acknowledged, the Plaintiff had faithfully operated the gas station from July 2004 to the date of the violation of the Petroleum Business Act, and the Plaintiff had 10% of the Plaintiff’s actual volume, and the profits earned by the Plaintiff were merely 17,415 won, in full view of the circumstances such as the Plaintiff’s actual volume was limited to 17,415 won.