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 was operating a gas station in Dong-gu, Nam-gu, Dong-gu, Seoul. However, on July 9, 2014, the gas station D was mainly and sold about 150 liters for oil, including Fump trucks, around 17:30, on the part of E driving.
(hereinafter “instant violation”). (b)
Article 39 (1) 7 of the former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (amended by Act No. 12294, Jan. 21, 2014; hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”) was violated by discovering and notifying the Defendant of the instant violation. On September 2, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition suspending business for three months against the Plaintiff, by applying Article 13 of the same Act and Article 16 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 39 (1) 7 of the same Act.
C. On November 19, 2014, the Cheong-do Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling to change the three-month disposition of business suspension to the “15th day of business suspension”.
In other words, on December 15, 2014, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to change the disposition of suspension of business to a penalty surcharge, and the Defendant changed the disposition of suspension of business to a penalty surcharge of KRW 50 million and notified the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). 【Disposition of a Penalty Surcharge / [Grounds for Recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, 6 through 8, Eul's 2 through 8, and 10 through 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not commit any illegal act while operating the gas station between them. The violation of this case is caused by E, and the plaintiff did not gain any profit by returning the oil back from E after the violation. The plaintiff was suspended from indictment for the violation of this case. The defendant sold fake petroleum and sold dump trucks with mobile-sale vehicles.