logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원고등법원 2020.04.29 2019누13196
과징금부과처분 취소청구
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As to the “B gas station” in Gwangju City (hereinafter “instant gas station”), the Plaintiff and his spouse completed their respective business registration regarding the “C gas station” in Gwangju City H.

B. On October 11, 2018, the president of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Southern Headquarters notified the Defendant on October 19, 2018, that “the Plaintiff violated the method of operating the gas station by providing the gas station with a vehicle (transport equipment) exceeding the load capacity of seven weeks from July 2, 2018 (from February 12, 2018 to February 18, 2018) to 27 weeks (from July 2, 2018 to July 8, 2018).”

C. On January 31, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 7,500,000 on the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant supply constitutes a violation of Article 39(1)10 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant gas station and C gas station are practically operated by the Plaintiff. For convenience, the instant gas station was divided into the oil station and C gas station, which entered into the instant oil station and C gas station with the vehicle for the transportation of oil, and processed the shipment by entering the document only.

This is merely an internal transportation procedure between gas stations belonging to the same corporation, and does not constitute “supply” under Article 39(1)10 of the Petroleum Business Act and Article 43(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Petroleum Business Act.

Moreover, the Plaintiff is not able to use the “vehicle with load exceeding five straws.”

arrow