1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From around 1986 to around 28 years, the Plaintiff is engaged in petroleum retail business (gas station) and currently operates the gas station with the trade name “B” at the Seosan CityJ (hereinafter “instant gas station”).

The plaintiff is currently operating the gas station of this case with his wife C without employing his employees.

B. On February 21, 2014, around 16:44, 2014, D, E visited the gas station of the instant case for the purpose of quality inspection, and collected one gasoline (number 22,23,24 of sample sample number) and three points (number 22,24) from the water tank of the instant gas station as samples for quality inspection.

C. As a result of the close inspection of the above four samples, the sample number No. 24, the sample number collected from the rear column of the instant tank, among the samples of the above four samples, were combined with about 5% of other petroleum products, etc., and was identified as “fake petroleum products” under Article 2 subparag. 10 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”).

On March 7, 2014, based on the result of the analysis, the Institute reported the result of the quality inspection of petroleum products to the Defendant on March 7, 2014, “one of the samples taken at the Plaintiff’s gas station in this case is a mixture of about 5% of other petroleum products in transit, which constitutes fake petroleum products provided for in the Petroleum Business Act.”

E. On March 25, 2014, the Defendant: (a) stored and sold fake petroleum products to the Plaintiff on the mobile-type sales vehicle; (b) instead of taking a disposition of business suspension for 45 days in which the business suspension for three months under Articles 14(1)3, 13(1)12, and 29(1)1 of the Petroleum Business Act was mitigated to 1/2.