1. The Defendant’s disposition of suspending its business for six months against the Plaintiff on December 7, 2016 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 5, 1995, the Plaintiff, with the Defendant’s permission for petroleum retail business (gas station) from the Defendant, runs a petroleum retail business under the trade name called “C gas station” in Daegu-gun, Daegu-gun (hereinafter “instant gas station”).

B. On October 18, 2016, the Daegu bordering headquarters found out the fact that the vehicle's mobile-sale vehicle of the instant gas station was mixed with approximately 10% of the oil storage tank in front of the D vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) with light oil for automobiles in the front of the oil storage tank.

C. On December 7, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspending the business for six months pursuant to Article 13(3) of the Petroleum Business Act and Article 16 of the Enforcement Rule of the Petroleum Business Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 29 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act by keeping and selling fake petroleum products (such as oil, etc.) mixed with approximately 10% of other petroleum products (hereinafter “instant violation”).

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Non-existence of the grounds for disposition: (a) it is inevitable that the instant vehicle has two oil storage tanks to use one heading; (b) the occurrence of mixed oil is inevitable; (c) the other mobile-sale vehicles in the instant gas station or the oil storage tank does not discover the mixed petroleum products; (d) the benefits the Plaintiff could obtain by the instant violating act are extremely low; and (e) the Plaintiff was suspected of violating the Petroleum Business Act due to the instant violating act (i.e., the fact that the instant vehicle was subject to the disposition of lack of evidence), and (iii) the Plaintiff did not intentionally keep fake petroleum products for the purpose of using them as fuel for the instant vehicle, etc.; and (iv) the Plaintiff did not intentionally keep them.

② Nevertheless, the Plaintiff.