1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court, which cited the judgment of the first instance, is the same as that of the first instance court, except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff's new argument at the court of the first instance as stated in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

Additional Part

A. According to Article 13(3) of the Petroleum Business Act, the Plaintiff asserts that even if a petroleum retailer manufactures, imports, stores, transports, keeps, or sells fake petroleum products, an administrative agency is given discretion not to take a disposition of business suspension or a disposition of imposition of a penalty surcharge pursuant to Article 13(4) of the same Act, Article 16 [Attachment 1] and Article 17 [Attachment 2] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Petroleum Business Act, which was delegated with the relevant disposition standards pursuant to Article 13(4) of the same Act, does not set the standards for cases where he/she does not take a disposition of business suspension or impose a penalty surcharge, the administrative disposition on the manufacture, import, storage, transport, storage, or sale of fake petroleum products is practically bound by the administrative disposition, which is contrary to the intent of delegation of the Petroleum Business

Article 16 [Attachment Table 1] and Article 17 [Attachment Table 2] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Petroleum Business Act provides that an administrative agency shall impose an administrative disposition against a person who violates Article 13 of the Petroleum Business Act. Thus, each of the above attached Table cannot be deemed to have deprived of discretion granted by the Petroleum Business Act to an administrative agency in relation to the administrative disposition against a petroleum retailer who manufactures, imports, stores, transports, keeps, or sells fake petroleum products.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. In similar cases to this case, the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case is in violation of the principle of equity on the ground that the head of Sejong Special Self-Governing City was the only warning, and that the head of Sejong Special Self-Governing City did not take any separate administrative disposition.