beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person running a petroleum retail business, and from March 18, 2009 to March 412, 2009, a person operating a gas station with the trade name of “the third-party gas station” (hereinafter “instant gas station”).
B. On April 12, 2016, the Yong-Nam headquarters: (a) collected and inspected automobile diesel samples (hereinafter “instant samples”) from the front section of the A tank A (hereinafter “instant sales vehicle”) owned by the Plaintiff; and (b) on April 26, 2016, notified the Defendant that the instant samples are “franchising products with approximately 5% of other petroleum products (e.g., oil, etc.) on the automobile diesel,” and that the instant samples are “franchising products under Article 2 subparag. 10 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “the Petroleum Business Act”).
Since May 27, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection to the above inspection results and conducted a reinspection, but the same results were also the same.
C. On August 17, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspension of business for two months (from August 26, 2016 to October 25, 2016) pursuant to Articles 29(1)1 and 13(3)8 of the Petroleum Business Act on the ground that the sample of this case against the Plaintiff became “fake petroleum products”.
On September 27, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, and the said administrative appeals commission rendered a ruling on September 27, 2016 that “the Defendant’s two-month suspension of business against the Plaintiff on August 17, 2016 shall be changed to the one-month suspension of business.” In accordance with the purport of the said ruling, the Defendant changed the disposition on October 24, 2016 for the two-month suspension of business (from November 7, 2016 to December 6, 2016).
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). [Ground for recognition] There is no dispute over a disposition of suspension of business for one month that has been mitigated, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and Eul.